• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Australian Rugby / RA

Crashy

Crashy

Arch Winning (36)
Agree yes that is very well done. Simplifies what we are being asked to agree on, and calls out the things we ( well most ) don't want. i.e more bureaucracy, costs, layers etc.
 
LeCheese

LeCheese

Peter Johnson (47)
Crashy said:
can someone post without paywall? ( Geerob article)
Click to expand...

Does rugby have an Israel Folau hangover?​

Georgina Robinson
May 17, 2023 — 3.30pm

On Thursday night Australian rugby will relive the tumult and distress of the Israel Folau saga when the ABC airs the Folau documentary.
It is an excellent film that does what journalists at the time — including this writer — could not, which is bring to the fore the experience of rugby’s sizeable Pacific Islander playing community.

It was not for want of trying. This masthead reached out to senior teammates of Folau’s for their reactions to the fullback’s plight, but none responded. Instead, what came was a call from a Rugby Australia media manager, furious that a journalist would canvas players directly for their reactions to one of the biggest controversies in a decade to play out in Australian sport.

It was a strange time, characterised by fear, loathing and mistrust. The players who resented RA’s treatment of Folau resorted to cryptic social media messages and there were rumours of a deepening rift between Pacific Islander players and the rest of the team and coach, Michael Cheika.

Ultimately, the players were worried enough about their own employment to stop them from speaking openly on the issue. Maybe they did not trust a white, female journalist to understand or respect their perspectives. Maybe it was a bit of both.

Folau director Nel Minchin delivers these perspectives in her film with depth and breadth, interviewing Wallabies centre Samu Kerevi, former Wallabies No.8 Toutai Kefu, academic Jioji Ravulo, the Folau family’s former Mormon bishop Salesi Tupou and gay Christian pastor Andre Afamasaga, among others.

It is airing at an interesting time in Australian political and cultural life. Ready or not, Rugby Australia, the country’s diverse playing group and the five Super Rugby clubs are again wrestling with the game’s intersection with these matters.
“It was agreed unanimously by our board that we don’t think politics should play a part in sport and it’s an individual’s preference,” Brumbies chairman Matt Nobbs said on Tuesday.

Nobbs was speaking about the upcoming referendum on building into the constitution an Indigenous Voice to parliament. By the end of the same day, he had faced a firestorm of feedback from Brumbies’ fans, players and other stakeholders, with one club executive characterising it as “world war three”.

Rugby is not the only sport that has taken time to communicate a position on the Voice but it is the only one with recent experience of what can happen when sports rush to do the trendy thing — or the right one — but don’t do their due diligence first.

If there is still polarised opinion around what RA should have done when Folau started publishing the most controversial aspects of his conservative Christian beliefs on social media — that homosexuals were going to Hell — it is easier to draw lessons from the year preceding the acrimonious breakup, and how poorly the internal communications were handled in the aftermath.

RA backed the Yes campaign in the 2017 same-sex marriage plebiscite with limited consultation. Then-Wallabies breakaway David Pocock and Michael Hooper backed the move in public, but Folau dissented in a Tweet widely regarded as a respectful expression of his position.

It was the beginning of the end of Folau’s career in Australia, the fork in the road where Rugby Australia, a self-styled progressive, inclusive international sports brand, left behind a large portion of its professional players. A year later the organisation was weathering a storm as fierce within as without.

It will not make the same mistake again, apparently. While only one RA director, Pip Marlow, remains on the board from that time and none of the senior executive remain, it is hard not to view the sport’s go-slow approach as a reaction to Folau.

It would not be a stretch to posit that every sport, as well as large sections of corporate Australia, has internalised the lessons from those two drawn-out years of legal argument and turmoil. The case ended without answering the central legal question but it shone a light on what can happen when a sport fails to bring along its most important assets, its players. Manly’s pride jersey fiasco did the same thing, three years later.

As sports administrator and former players’ union boss Greg Harris, the man who brokered Folau’s move to rugby 10 years ago, used to say, “when you’re ahead of the pack it pays to look back once in a while to make sure the pack is still behind you”.
Nobbs, drawing a leaf from former prime minister John Howard’s book, is old-fashioned in his views on sport and politics. There is a generation younger than him that is comfortable recognising the political in everything.

They are holding sway, but they should also not fool themselves that governing bodies and corporations are only doing what is right when they take positions on social issues.

They are also doing what will grow their bottom line or please their own paymasters which, in the case of sporting organisations, are often state and federal governments. While Nobbs’ comments whizzed around rugby’s corridors of power, one official remarked to this masthead: “The Brumbies have just stuffed their stadium negotiations. Why should [ACT Chief Minister] Andrew Barr support them in their top priority (a new stadium in the centre of Canberra) if they won’t support one of his?”

Every governing body that has backed or will back the Yes campaign has made a calculation that their position carries minimal commercial risk and a good chunk of potential upside. If it’s also the right thing to do, they’ve hit the trifecta.
Which brings up the glaring fly in Big Sport’s feelgood ointment: sports gambling. When the AFL, NRL and Rugby Australia wean themselves off that teat, their credibility will improve.

Georgina Robinson appears as an interviewee on the Folau documentary.
Click to expand...
 
spikhaza

spikhaza

John Solomon (38)
Can I say I don't think the statement is very good at all, and it's clearly written by an organisation that doesn't know what it's getting into when it wades into a very very serious political issue.

For a start, as a political issue, this is far more party partisan than the previous issues Rugby AU has engaged in. Campaigning for LGBT causes including gay marriage and against players that spread hate on these issues had a far broader and deeper support from the electorate - 64% of people voted for it, and it succeeded in every state and territory.

The voice is a completely different proposition to this. Currently, the voice is polling at just 53-47, as of yesterday, and it is well behind that in other states - particularly Queensland. Of this country's political parties, there are two that clearly support the voice (ALP, Greens), three that clearly oppose (LP, NP, PHON), and strong support behind both campaigns.

On current polling, the voice would actually likely lose even if it wins the overall popular vote 53-47, because it would likely fail in TAS, WA, and QLD, while racking up lopsided victories in VIC and NSW, and overall falling short of the requirement to win the vote in a majority of states.

Like all modern political issues, opinion on this question typically divides on the urban region divide. This typically sees stronger progressive support in urban centres, strong conservative support in the regions, and a mixture in the suburbs.

All of this suggests that at the very least there is strong plurality support for both sides of the referendum and that Australians have very legitimate reasons for voting yes or no.

The statement itself amounts to an endorsement that makes an opaque effort to acknowledge people's concerns, but without actually addressing them properly.

- The idea that the Voice is good because it's not a third chamber is a strawman argument and isn't what anyone from the no case has been arguing since about since c. 2017. The problem is that the executive government clause that is proposed potentially gives any litigant the right to make vexatious challenges to executive government decisions in the High Court, which is not in our national interest.

- Rugby AU makes no mention of the executive government clause issue that’s prevalent with the voice in its statement, but simply asserts that the voice doesn’t or won’t obstruct government. The history of constitutional changes tells us that that is not the case and a number of legal scholars including a former High Court justice are also of this opinion.

- Rugby AU quite wrongly compares the referendum to the 1967 referendum which removed the race power from the constitution. This would insert race back into the constitution, so it’s an incredibly strange comparison to make.

Putting aside the errorts in the statement, endorsing such a partisan cause will raise a lot of questions from the public:

  • What does Rugby AU say to the 5,200,000 liberal national voters that are likely to vote no to this referendum? Are they included in Rugby AU and welcomed?
  • What does Rugby AU say to Queenslanders, who currently are on track to very clearly vote no. Are they included in Rugby AU or does it only represent the views of people in NSW and other states that are leaning yes?
  • What does Rugby AU say to its supporters in regional areas who polling also shows do not back the voice
  • How can Rugby AU claim to be an organisation that’s diverse and inclusive when it excludes plurality political views of certain states, areas, and people?
  • Shouldn’t Rugby AU be an organisation that is pro pluralism? Shouldn’t it actually embrace political differences? Isn’t one of the beauties and indeed the majesty of the democratic system that there are differences?

All of these issues go to the deeper issue of whether companies/sports organisations should be involved in endorsing political and social clauses. My position is an empathic and firm, no, never ever ever ever get involved in political causes, ever ever ever.

The truth is that having companies and organisations back these causes divides their fan base, pushes people apart, and ultimately serves to detract from interest in the sport as a whole.

In the United States, ground zero for organisations taking partisan stands on social issues, there’s growing evidence that when it’s done badly it has spectacularly backfired for companies. Even though I don’t support the backlash, the recent bud light issue comes to mind, as does Gillette, as does Disney.

I think this was not a good idea, and can I say, if you’re a “Yes” supporter in the upcoming referendum, this is a blunder for your campaign.

One of the key factors that turned people off voting yes in the 1999 republic referendum was that it looked like all of our institutions were stacking the deck and pushing people to vote yes. It had a huge amount of celebrity endorsement.

This actually backfired, and quite spectacularly. Australians don’t like it when companies and elite organisations try and tell them how to vote. When we wash up the referendum, and it loses (and believe me, it’s going to lose, every polling trend is against the referendum, and undecided voters are breaking 90-10 against it), endorsement from big institutions is going to be one of the reasons why people voted no, just like in 1999.

Rugby AU should stay out of Australia’s democratic processes at all times.
 
Slim 293

Slim 293

Stirling Mortlock (74)
spikhaza said:
Can I say I don't think the statement is very good at all, and it's clearly written by an organisation that doesn't know what it's getting into when it wades into a very very serious political issue.

For a start, as a political issue, this is far more party partisan than the previous issues Rugby AU has engaged in. Campaigning for LGBT causes including gay marriage and against players that spread hate on these issues had a far broader and deeper support from the electorate - 64% of people voted for it, and it succeeded in every state and territory.

The voice is a completely different proposition to this. Currently, the voice is polling at just 53-47, as of yesterday, and it is well behind that in other states - particularly Queensland. Of this country's political parties, there are two that clearly support the voice (ALP, Greens), three that clearly oppose (LP, NP, PHON), and strong support behind both campaigns.

On current polling, the voice would actually likely lose even if it wins the overall popular vote 53-47, because it would likely fail in TAS, WA, and QLD, while racking up lopsided victories in VIC and NSW, and overall falling short of the requirement to win the vote in a majority of states.

Like all modern political issues, opinion on this question typically divides on the urban region divide. This typically sees stronger progressive support in urban centres, strong conservative support in the regions, and a mixture in the suburbs.

All of this suggests that at the very least there is strong plurality support for both sides of the referendum and that Australians have very legitimate reasons for voting yes or no.

The statement itself amounts to an endorsement that makes an opaque effort to acknowledge people's concerns, but without actually addressing them properly.

- The idea that the Voice is good because it's not a third chamber is a strawman argument and isn't what anyone from the no case has been arguing since about since c. 2017. The problem is that the executive government clause that is proposed potentially gives any litigant the right to make vexatious challenges to executive government decisions in the High Court, which is not in our national interest.

- Rugby AU makes no mention of the executive government clause issue that’s prevalent with the voice in its statement, but simply asserts that the voice doesn’t or won’t obstruct government. The history of constitutional changes tells us that that is not the case and a number of legal scholars including a former High Court justice are also of this opinion.

- Rugby AU quite wrongly compares the referendum to the 1967 referendum which removed the race power from the constitution. This would insert race back into the constitution, so it’s an incredibly strange comparison to make.

Putting aside the errorts in the statement, endorsing such a partisan cause will raise a lot of questions from the public:

  • What does Rugby AU say to the 5,200,000 liberal national voters that are likely to vote no to this referendum? Are they included in Rugby AU and welcomed?
  • What does Rugby AU say to Queenslanders, who currently are on track to very clearly vote no. Are they included in Rugby AU or does it only represent the views of people in NSW and other states that are leaning yes?
  • What does Rugby AU say to its supporters in regional areas who polling also shows do not back the voice
  • How can Rugby AU claim to be an organisation that’s diverse and inclusive when it excludes plurality political views of certain states, areas, and people?
  • Shouldn’t Rugby AU be an organisation that is pro pluralism? Shouldn’t it actually embrace political differences? Isn’t one of the beauties and indeed the majesty of the democratic system that there are differences?

All of these issues go to the deeper issue of whether companies/sports organisations should be involved in endorsing political and social clauses. My position is an empathic and firm, no, never ever ever ever get involved in political causes, ever ever ever.

The truth is that having companies and organisations back these causes divides their fan base, pushes people apart, and ultimately serves to detract from interest in the sport as a whole.

In the United States, ground zero for organisations taking partisan stands on social issues, there’s growing evidence that when it’s done badly it has spectacularly backfired for companies. Even though I don’t support the backlash, the recent bud light issue comes to mind, as does Gillette, as does Disney.

I think this was not a good idea, and can I say, if you’re a “Yes” supporter in the upcoming referendum, this is a blunder for your campaign.

One of the key factors that turned people off voting yes in the 1999 republic referendum was that it looked like all of our institutions were stacking the deck and pushing people to vote yes. It had a huge amount of celebrity endorsement.

This actually backfired, and quite spectacularly. Australians don’t like it when companies and elite organisations try and tell them how to vote. When we wash up the referendum, and it loses (and believe me, it’s going to lose, every polling trend is against the referendum, and undecided voters are breaking 90-10 against it), endorsement from big institutions is going to be one of the reasons why people voted no, just like in 1999.

Rugby AU should stay out of Australia’s democratic processes at all times.
Click to expand...


This analysis reads like Sky News... some of these claims are very, very dubious.
 
spikhaza

spikhaza

John Solomon (38)
Slim 293 said:
This analysis reads like Sky News... some of these claims are very, very dubious.
Click to expand...
Which claims? I'd love to know. I personally utterly detest Sky News, so I'm very surprised to be compared to them.

PS here is a trend chart of the YES v NO vote, published in the Sydney Morning Herald (NOT SKY!) yesterday. If anything, the voice primary vote is falling earlier, and faster, than the republic vote, which only collapsed about three months before polling day.

voice_support_trend-graphic-only-smaller.jpg
 
Braveheart81

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
What's there to lose? Every major sporting code in Australia is on the same page. Are no voters going to stop watching sport due to their outrage?
 
spikhaza

spikhaza

John Solomon (38)
Braveheart81 said:
What's there to lose? Every major sporting code in Australia is on the same page. Are no voters going to stop watching sport due to their outrage?
Click to expand...
No, no voters aren't going to stop watching, except for the intergalactically dim people that do watch sky (who were probably never rugby fans in the first place, and allegedly said they'd stop watching after Folau anyway), but this is a debate about what the right thing to do is, not whether it will stop people from watching. The right thing to do is to respect the democratic process and be an organisation for all Australians, not just those Australians of a certain political persuasion.
 
Wallaby Man

Wallaby Man

Trevor Allan (34)
As much as I hate how divisive our culture is these days and how we have probably gone more backwards in attitudes the last 5-10yrs towards gender/race etc. because everyone is desperate to align with something (Māori background here and I officially hate these days how people are desperate to categorize me despite just been a normal guy, didn’t have this 5-10yrs ago). I do think there is more to lose from not supporting it than the reverse.

Media is generally the domain of people outside the centre be it right or left of politics. Given social media is predominantly a left leaning platform and it’s propensity to attack differing views in a venomous fashion you can quickly lose the narrative and be accused of something nobody or entity wants to be attached to. This could be racist, sexist, etc. more often than not the intention isn’t the case from the people accused but once the horse has bolted in the media or specifically social media it’s very difficult to rein in back in and could do horrendous damage to a brand.

As GeeRob’s article indicates there is also a political element, with a “you support our causes and we will support yours” process behind it.

Unfortunately in society these days I think you are more likely to damage your brand by not supporting it than if you did the reverse or remained on the fence. Nuance is currently gone in society.

For whoever made the Sky news comment, yea there is some out there thinking on that platform but need to realise you’re almost as likely to have a ridiculous conversation on the ABC at times as well. I have given up watching Q&A as they rarely have a balanced conversation
 
fatprop

fatprop

George Gregan (70)
Staff member
Braveheart81 said:
What's there to lose? Every major sporting code in Australia is on the same page. Are no voters going to stop watching sport due to their outrage?
Click to expand...

It is performative box ticking from the marketing department (not just this but every week we have something)

I don't go to rugby matches to learn about the latest social wrongs or celebrations, I go with the hope (well it is the tahs and the wobs) they play well and win whilst I enjoy a beer

My preference is that sporting codes focus their sport and that all serving politicians return to their rightful place as someone to boo at if they flash up on the big screen -c*nts the lot of them

the scots got it right (NSFW)

and Liverpool
 
spikhaza

spikhaza

John Solomon (38)
Dctarget said:
All four major codes are supporting the voice, at least we didn’t strike out solo
Click to expand...
Goes to show the level of group think and lack of diversity of thought in these organisations. Ironic given they have a fawning conga line of sycophants that evangelise "diversity" (political and regional diversity not included sorry). Perhaps we should have quotas for regional and interstate board members for Sydney and Melbourne corporates?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top