The AFL commission. The name is not as intimidating as it should be. There is definitely a need for a more menacing title. Perhaps something similar to the threatening names of totalitarian governments in times gone by. Those governments that siphoned the wealth of a nation into their own hands. Forgetting to redistribute it, they spent it, and blamed the people as the country declined into poverty.
Plans of national domination are first priority on the AFL agenda. The Sydney and Gold Coast teams seem mere formalities. Though one wonders why the Gold Coast license hasn’t been granted. An 18 team competition is a matter of time. The AFL’s plan is completely understandable and maybe necessary. The way they execute it needs to be examined. Australia is definitely a competitive sporting market and if the league wants to one day be the most popular sport all around the country it needs to start its investment now. But it is terms like market and investment that lead people to talk about the AFL like it is purely a business entity. It is clearly not.
People love to mention the term brand in reference to our game. Fans are consumers. Buying a product. One day the term club, conjuring up ideals of community and friendship, may be replaced by that dreaded American word franchise. Plenty of wealthy brands have entered hostile markets and succeeded. But the word brand connotes an item that is sold to people for their use. Something that they buy as a requirement or as a luxury. Sure, certain brands go beyond mere use and become emotional items. People do become attached and emotionally involved with brands. But the vast majority of brands just serve a purpose. Brands and consumers are not the same as a sport and its fans, and confusing them can lead to some big errors.
People in Sydney and Queensland have grown up with Rugby as their main sport. Assuming that in time that they will grow to love AFL is almost as insulting as assuming that with the same investment, the NRL could slowly convince us to love Rugby more than Aussie Rules. The AFL really has no solid precedent to support its investment in new territories. The Swans, after years of investment and pain, had their most successful period in the last 5 years. They still couldn’t draw more than 20,000 to a home final. Brisbane lost more than 2 million last year and their membership was similar to Melbourne’s in 2008. They just emerged from a period of unprecedented post-VFL success (on field). It is reasonable to suggest that investing in a football loyal state may be a better option than the high-risk investments in hostile territories.
Many forever-stepped-upon Tasmanians agree, and with all the talk of new AFL licenses around, Tasmania has put together a compelling case for consideration. Sadly, consideration is all they will ever get. The league will most likely never extend to more than 18 teams. A further two teams will already devalue the standard of the game. When the new Sydney team and Gold Coast team join the league, the only chance of Tasmania getting a team is to usurp a Melbourne team. (Relocate is a dirty word). The Tasmanian market is simply not lucrative enough to invest in. The population of the state is just 500, 000 and the team would have to play games in both cities. Attendances for Launceston games would need to grow considerably. That is not to mention the public relations battle the AFL would face. Most Victorians are probably quite supportive of the Tasmanian bid. Every Victorian club has had a legend from Tasmania, and at least a team there would be supported by genuine footy supporters. But a relocation would surely galvanise the Melbourne football public. Such hostility was shown by North Melbourne chief executive Eugene Arocca. The Roos and their members, like Melbourne members, have had just about enough of ‘footy supporters’ insisting on their clubs inevitable extinction. So when an ANZ banker (insert ‘w’ where appropriate) proposed that for a Tassie team to join either Melbourne or North would have to die Arocca took umbrage. Said banker forgot that North had 6 million lying in his bank. Promptly withdrawn.
North has already fought some tough battles, and after beating off the Gold Coast relocation they will be in Melbourne for a while yet. So will the Dees. For all the talk of teams moving one must remember that a lot of Melbourne clubs have fought the AFL to the death and won. Footscray, Richmond, StKilda, Hawthorn, North Melbourne and Melbourne (thanks Don Scott). Perhaps the AFL, sitting in piles of money, needs to join the dots. Most of its wealth comes from television. Television is watched by obsessed fans, not consumers. And those fans love a game produced by the clubs. Some socialist thinkers may argue that some, if not most, of the fortune in the AFL coffers rightfully belongs to the clubs. But builders of empires rarely think of their loyal subjects. It’s not likely the AFL will start now.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Friday, February 13, 2009
O'Hailpin - the luck of the Irish.
'The AFL tribunal is a complete disgrace'
One of the aims of this blog is to present a rational, thoughtful reaction to the current issues surrounding AFL football. Something in contrast to some of the disposable opinion pieces that are regularly published in our daily sports pages. No sensationalism. No ridiculous, fanciful, provocative statements. No controversy. (And with my reader base, believe me, I cold stir up some controversy). With these core values (decided by my 'leadership group') in mind I have made the above statement.
Let's give the tribunal a clean slate. I can forget about the past. Its first serious decision this year was to give Setanta O'Hailpin five weeks. This got reduced to four because he admitted it (hahaha), then the tribunal in its unpreparedness and stupidity said he could serve it during the Panasonic cup. Even though four hundred preseason games are not worth one real game. They probably knew Setanta wouldn't be playing many regular season games anyway. The footage of the incident is damning to say the least. Setanta belted his own teammate and then kicked him while he was on the ground, defenceless. Mike Sheahan suggested he would get 12. How, in 2009, can a player get just four games (pointless ansett cup games) for doing this?
The glorious AFL is a highly political institution, driven by an insatiable public and media. February is the feel good time of the year. Every player has done their first ever pre-season. (Those that are still injured have been exiled and banned from media contact). Every club has a full list ready to play for the first time in a decade. Membership levels are at record highs. And before the real games begin, the commentators,for some reason, are happy to fill the sports pages with feel good stories of football players and coaches finding goodness in the football community. See human interest stories on Dean Laidley, Alan Didak, David Zaharakis, Shaun Higgins, Jarrod Harbrow, and every player at Richmond (their PR man is good).
All very lucky for O'Hailpin. He is a fringe player at best. Some suggested Carlton take this opportunity to delist him. Others suggested delisting him would be 'hanging him out to dry', as Carlton had recruited him from Ireland and owed him something. They have paid him enough I'm sure. What Carlton choose to do with O'Hailpin is their business. But the tribunal does have a responsibility to enforce the rules and punish players suitably for breaking the rules. The tribunal does, in my mind, have a responsibility to be consistent. The biggest problem it has had for so many years is a blatant lack of consistency from week to week. If the tribunal did work on the core value of consistency (I don't have a nobel prize so I don't understand the points system) then the O'Hailpin judgment is a joke. As the season goes by, can all reported players point to this precedent of extreme leniency and escape with light penalties? Could it lead to a new era of AFL violence??? (You wish...) No. Because the AFL tribunal pays no heed to precedent. It has no interest in consistency. The tribunals judgments are decided by a points system that comes up with decisions that are completely random and sometimes quite ridiculous. And that is a rational appraisal.
PS... I ordinarily refrain from representing Collingwood's interests in any way, but one only needs to look at the penalty Nick Maxwell got for his good old fashioned hip and shoulder to agree with the sentiments above.
One of the aims of this blog is to present a rational, thoughtful reaction to the current issues surrounding AFL football. Something in contrast to some of the disposable opinion pieces that are regularly published in our daily sports pages. No sensationalism. No ridiculous, fanciful, provocative statements. No controversy. (And with my reader base, believe me, I cold stir up some controversy). With these core values (decided by my 'leadership group') in mind I have made the above statement.
Let's give the tribunal a clean slate. I can forget about the past. Its first serious decision this year was to give Setanta O'Hailpin five weeks. This got reduced to four because he admitted it (hahaha), then the tribunal in its unpreparedness and stupidity said he could serve it during the Panasonic cup. Even though four hundred preseason games are not worth one real game. They probably knew Setanta wouldn't be playing many regular season games anyway. The footage of the incident is damning to say the least. Setanta belted his own teammate and then kicked him while he was on the ground, defenceless. Mike Sheahan suggested he would get 12. How, in 2009, can a player get just four games (pointless ansett cup games) for doing this?
The glorious AFL is a highly political institution, driven by an insatiable public and media. February is the feel good time of the year. Every player has done their first ever pre-season. (Those that are still injured have been exiled and banned from media contact). Every club has a full list ready to play for the first time in a decade. Membership levels are at record highs. And before the real games begin, the commentators,for some reason, are happy to fill the sports pages with feel good stories of football players and coaches finding goodness in the football community. See human interest stories on Dean Laidley, Alan Didak, David Zaharakis, Shaun Higgins, Jarrod Harbrow, and every player at Richmond (their PR man is good).
All very lucky for O'Hailpin. He is a fringe player at best. Some suggested Carlton take this opportunity to delist him. Others suggested delisting him would be 'hanging him out to dry', as Carlton had recruited him from Ireland and owed him something. They have paid him enough I'm sure. What Carlton choose to do with O'Hailpin is their business. But the tribunal does have a responsibility to enforce the rules and punish players suitably for breaking the rules. The tribunal does, in my mind, have a responsibility to be consistent. The biggest problem it has had for so many years is a blatant lack of consistency from week to week. If the tribunal did work on the core value of consistency (I don't have a nobel prize so I don't understand the points system) then the O'Hailpin judgment is a joke. As the season goes by, can all reported players point to this precedent of extreme leniency and escape with light penalties? Could it lead to a new era of AFL violence??? (You wish...) No. Because the AFL tribunal pays no heed to precedent. It has no interest in consistency. The tribunals judgments are decided by a points system that comes up with decisions that are completely random and sometimes quite ridiculous. And that is a rational appraisal.
PS... I ordinarily refrain from representing Collingwood's interests in any way, but one only needs to look at the penalty Nick Maxwell got for his good old fashioned hip and shoulder to agree with the sentiments above.
Friday, February 6, 2009
If it's not broken...
After years of talking absolute rubbish, rent-a-quote Jason Akermanis has said something really logical. And all is now forgiven. Because someone needs to stop the AFL rule-changing machine, and we all know that once the season starts players and coaches will be gagged and bound if they mention anything negative about the Communist party. Oops... I mean the AFL. Akermanis, in a strangely thoughtful and non-controversial manner, has joined Rodney Eade in questioning the need for another new rule. (At least it's not a new 'interpretation')
"I don't understand why there is continually knee-jerk reactions to lots of stuff in the game today. Our game doesn't need to keep changing."
Nearly every person who enjoys football is thinking the exact same thing. Does anyone hear Geelong supporters complaining about Hawthorn rushing too many behinds in last years Grand Final? Is that why they lost the flag? If the game had have been closer, and Hawthorn had lost, then the behind rushing tactic would already have met its end.
Being a defender is hard enough these days with the push in the back interpretation. Giving away a free kick/goal for a rushed behind is much too harsh a punishment. Even worse, if the rule was to become permanent, we would introduce more umpire interpretation into the game (the LAST thing we need) where umpires would need to adjudicate on if a player 'rushed' a behind or not. Defenders would need to practice 'accidentally' rushing a behind in the same farcical way that players deliberately/accidentally lead the ball out of bounds. If the AFL's aim is to create controversy, confuse players and frustrate the public, then it should introduce the rule into the real season. Otherwise, leave it in the Ansett Cup with the nine pointer.
Finally, it could be argued that the rule changers created their own problem a few years ago when they allowed players to take the kick out immediately after a behind. This meant that teams that score the behind have no time to set up a zone or a tactic to hold in the kick out (any junior footballer knows that man-on-man led to the huddle which forced the creation of the now redundant zone). So a defender can happily rush a behind then kick out straight away. If there isn't an immediate option the defender can take their time to find one. Previously, when the full back (ah...designated kicker)had to wait for the goal umpires flag, a rushed behind was not nearly as attractive as it is today.
Which just goes to show that messing with the beautiful equilibrium of AFL rules is a dangerous practice. One that the AFL should refrain from.
PS. If you look back to a post in 2007 you can see Paul Roos first reaction to the push in the back rule. Interesting.
"I don't understand why there is continually knee-jerk reactions to lots of stuff in the game today. Our game doesn't need to keep changing."
Nearly every person who enjoys football is thinking the exact same thing. Does anyone hear Geelong supporters complaining about Hawthorn rushing too many behinds in last years Grand Final? Is that why they lost the flag? If the game had have been closer, and Hawthorn had lost, then the behind rushing tactic would already have met its end.
Being a defender is hard enough these days with the push in the back interpretation. Giving away a free kick/goal for a rushed behind is much too harsh a punishment. Even worse, if the rule was to become permanent, we would introduce more umpire interpretation into the game (the LAST thing we need) where umpires would need to adjudicate on if a player 'rushed' a behind or not. Defenders would need to practice 'accidentally' rushing a behind in the same farcical way that players deliberately/accidentally lead the ball out of bounds. If the AFL's aim is to create controversy, confuse players and frustrate the public, then it should introduce the rule into the real season. Otherwise, leave it in the Ansett Cup with the nine pointer.
Finally, it could be argued that the rule changers created their own problem a few years ago when they allowed players to take the kick out immediately after a behind. This meant that teams that score the behind have no time to set up a zone or a tactic to hold in the kick out (any junior footballer knows that man-on-man led to the huddle which forced the creation of the now redundant zone). So a defender can happily rush a behind then kick out straight away. If there isn't an immediate option the defender can take their time to find one. Previously, when the full back (ah...designated kicker)had to wait for the goal umpires flag, a rushed behind was not nearly as attractive as it is today.
Which just goes to show that messing with the beautiful equilibrium of AFL rules is a dangerous practice. One that the AFL should refrain from.
PS. If you look back to a post in 2007 you can see Paul Roos first reaction to the push in the back rule. Interesting.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
The Prizemoney Debate. The Final Word
The prizemoney debate is quite confusing, and Baum's article provides some very good arguments for women receiving equal prizemoney. The debate is irrelevant. Simply because after years of campaigning for equal prizemoney, upon receiving it, there is no way that women's tennis would even contemplate going back to receiving less prizemoney.
But after the Williams-Safina debacle of 59 minutes, debate we will. The epic 5 setter between Nadal and Federer one day later added weight to arguments that women don't deserve equal cash.
Baum points out that sportspeople, and entertainers in general, are not payed by the hour. Excellent point. Although sportspeople are not payed by the hour, it is reasonable to argue that the revenue that they generate (ticket sales, advertising, sponsorship, merchandise etc) which leads to and justifies their monstrous pay packets, is calculated in a more conventional way. Advertisers pay to have their product shown during a match. Sponsors pay to have their product associated with a spectactle. Members of the public pay to watch a game. So if one were to look at the prizemoney debate in a different way, they could argue that women's games generate less revenue for the tournament and so, women should be payed less. But is this true?
If, for example, an advertising spot for the women's final is cheaper than a spot for the men's final, then this is evidence. Keep in mind that men's games go for much longer so can generate much more advertising money for the tournament. If ticket demand is lower for the women's matches than the men's matches and the prices are subsequently lower, then this is evidence. Statistics like these are more compelling than the simple argument that women play for less time and so deserve less money.
But that argument, 3 verses 5 sets, also deserves attention. Don't male players have the right to complain? Why are they required to play longer? They put more energy, time and quite possible training, into winning games. They risk more injury and maybe their careers are cut short by the demands of 5 set battles. And they get the same pay as other sportspeople who play for less time, who spend less energy, and whose careers can possibly last longer (and allow them to earn more money). In many industries this would be considered unfair.
Perhaps the only way to really establish which sex generates more money would be to hold the tournament completely seperately. Like in Golf. That way we could see the revenue generated and award the prizemoney accordingly. This, obviously is also an impossibility.
So the debate is pointless. But here is my final word. Sexism and statistics aside, the common tennis fan wants to see great games. Not long games, but great games. Epic rivalries. Tension. Stirring comebacks and players showing heart. Competition, courage, stories... In this respect the women are not delivering. They are delivering a product and the product is poor. The men's product is better and so male tennis players could legitimately argue that they deserve a greater cut of the revenue.
But after the Williams-Safina debacle of 59 minutes, debate we will. The epic 5 setter between Nadal and Federer one day later added weight to arguments that women don't deserve equal cash.
Baum points out that sportspeople, and entertainers in general, are not payed by the hour. Excellent point. Although sportspeople are not payed by the hour, it is reasonable to argue that the revenue that they generate (ticket sales, advertising, sponsorship, merchandise etc) which leads to and justifies their monstrous pay packets, is calculated in a more conventional way. Advertisers pay to have their product shown during a match. Sponsors pay to have their product associated with a spectactle. Members of the public pay to watch a game. So if one were to look at the prizemoney debate in a different way, they could argue that women's games generate less revenue for the tournament and so, women should be payed less. But is this true?
If, for example, an advertising spot for the women's final is cheaper than a spot for the men's final, then this is evidence. Keep in mind that men's games go for much longer so can generate much more advertising money for the tournament. If ticket demand is lower for the women's matches than the men's matches and the prices are subsequently lower, then this is evidence. Statistics like these are more compelling than the simple argument that women play for less time and so deserve less money.
But that argument, 3 verses 5 sets, also deserves attention. Don't male players have the right to complain? Why are they required to play longer? They put more energy, time and quite possible training, into winning games. They risk more injury and maybe their careers are cut short by the demands of 5 set battles. And they get the same pay as other sportspeople who play for less time, who spend less energy, and whose careers can possibly last longer (and allow them to earn more money). In many industries this would be considered unfair.
Perhaps the only way to really establish which sex generates more money would be to hold the tournament completely seperately. Like in Golf. That way we could see the revenue generated and award the prizemoney accordingly. This, obviously is also an impossibility.
So the debate is pointless. But here is my final word. Sexism and statistics aside, the common tennis fan wants to see great games. Not long games, but great games. Epic rivalries. Tension. Stirring comebacks and players showing heart. Competition, courage, stories... In this respect the women are not delivering. They are delivering a product and the product is poor. The men's product is better and so male tennis players could legitimately argue that they deserve a greater cut of the revenue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)