As we all know, Manly is widely regarded as a very political club.
Meaning…? Meaning, more often than not, there are people in the organisation working to shore up their position, manoeuvre for ascendancy, or force out a rival to their power.
So what is ‘politics’, anyway?
Politics can be thought of as government and parliaments, but of course it is much broader than that. Definitions of politics usually include ideas such as, the set of activities associated with making decisions in groups, or other forms of power relations among individuals.
Power. It’s really about power. In any given context, who has it, who wants it, and what they are all doing to either protect or acquire it.
“Keep politics out of sport!”
A popular cry in recent times, certainly among Sea Eagle fans. The dream is entirely appealing, and understandable. Most of us watch sport to take our minds off our worldly worries and the state of the nation. So, let’s keep sport - or at least our own club - unified behind a common objective.
How hard can it be? Everyone, from top to bottom in the organisation, focussed on a strategy for success, on and off the field, allowing the players to get on with winning games. No factions, no distractions. No jealousies or personal power plays. No divisive red herring issues.
After all, it is possible. Isn’t it?
No, it is not possible to eliminate all division and rivalries. But it is possible to keep a lid on them, for periods of time, as is necessary to win a premiership. For 15 years Storm have largely managed it. Roosters for over 10. But to see how difficult it is just look at the last couple of years at the Broncos, one of the most powerful of all clubs. Not to mention the intermittent dramas at the Dragons, the Tigers, and Dogs. The Warriors. Eels. The Titans, and Raiders. Knights! And, of course, at the Sea Eagles.
A plethora of conflicts can and do arise in a club: issues between administrators; or between administrators and owners; or sponsors and owners; or between owners and coaches, or coaches and players, player agents and owners. Between players and other players. Players and other player’s wives!
OK, but at least keep out all the external politics
Can’t we? That depends what we mean by external politics.
Rugby league by its nature has an elemental attraction and a broad appeal that captures the imagination of fans. For this reason it has always also attracted politicians, keen to be seen at high profile games and events. They want to be recognised and they want their political agendas associated with the popular game, and with the values the game represents.
This is the same reason corporate sponsors want to be associated with the game.
So, what are the values associated with rugby league?
Firstly, working class solidarity. Rugby league had begun in 1895 when clubs in the working class north of England broke away from the RFU. They wanted to compensate their working-class players who couldn’t afford to pay rent or feed their families if they took time off work for injuries or rugby tours. The RFU refused, saying 'if men couldn't afford to play, then they shouldn't play at all'. The breakaway league was an instant hit and attracted good crowds.
At its heart the key messaging and values have always been around manliness. In particular, around working-class ideals of manhood. From the beginning, the need for a man to be able to support his family.
League obviously is an extremely tough game to play, and it embodies the need for men to be tough. Not only tough but brave, because you know you will be hurt. Put your body on the line for your mates. For your ‘tribe’. Be disciplined, in fitness and teamwork. Be stoic, don’t show pain, keep getting up.
Has anything changed?
Of course. Things always change. In Australia change came most dramatically with the advent of poker machines in licenced leagues clubs, semi-professionalism, and significantly, the introduction of television and the broadcasting of the game.
Within a short time corporations were starting to jump on board.
The branding of the game was still as the ultimate working man’s game, but increasingly over time the values became corporate values. All about the bottom line. And the players treated increasingly like cattle.
With the big matches consistently dominating TV ratings, the advertising value to broadcasters was ballooning. When pay TV came along, control of this gold mine was at the heart of what became the Murdoch v Packer Super League war.
Simply the best
The branding of the game was becoming more sophisticated. League stars represented simply the best of manhood. Still tough and brave, as always, but with skyrocketing pay packets at the top level, there was now a distinct increase in glamour.
The corollary of this was the values the game projected for women. Men were the head of the traditional working-class family. Women nurtured and supported. And the girls dressed in skimpy sexy outfits to cheer for the heroes.
Meanwhile, to succeed in the game, men still needed to be aggressive and dominant.
The Alpha male model projected by the game was increasingly at odds with the feminist movement that had been steadily growing since the mid-20th century.
Selling lifestyles
Big tobacco sponsorship in the game starts with WD & HO Wills in 1960 and was continuous through to the Winfield Cup, which only stopped due to government intervention prohibiting tobacco advertising – because of the devastating cost to the community of the side effects of smoking.
Most players, who by necessity were fit and healthy, were not big smokers. But the game was used to promote a smoking lifestyle. To the huge financial benefit of tobacco companies.
By the 21st century the game was awash with alcohol sponsorships. Drinking had always been part of the working man’s lifestyle, and of rugby league culture. Train hard, play hard, drink hard. Guzzle, guzzle, guzzle, pour it down the muzzle.
A report in 2019 found 4 of the world’s largest foreign-owned alcohol companies dominated AFL and NRL advertising.
As with tobacco, this was not through any altruism, generosity or community spirit, but simply because advertising sells. A detailed 2018 Australian Department of Health report concluded that ‘alcohol advertising and promotion increases the likelihood that adolescents will start to use alcohol, and to drink more if they are already using alcohol.’
Now gambling. It is currently impossible to attend a game or watch one on TV without seeing gambling messages. Bet with mates! And as with tobacco and alcohol, this advertising does work to promote and expand a betting culture.
What else?
It doesn’t stop with tobacco, alcohol, and gambling. Nor with promoting the ideal of the alpha male and supportive, decorative roles for females.
Sport and especially rugby league works to reinforce the dominant status quo in powerful ways we don’t even realise. Ways we may not see as political. There is a hidden history that corporate sports media is not interested in reporting.
Example – the combative nature of the sport and its values – and language – are useful to promote the armed services. How many times have we seen the game used in order to promote militarist and patriotic themes? This has become so commonplace that many fans just assume it is 'normal'.
This year, with US-China tensions in the Pacific and some of our leading politicians openly using terms like ‘war footing’, rugby league games featured solemn military remembrance ceremonies not just on ANZAC Day, which fell on 25 April, but also on 21 April.
Oh, and also on 22 April. And on 23 April and 24 April.
The game gets tough on misogyny
A few years ago the NRL announced new measures including automatic no-fault ‘stand-downs’ in the wake of a deluge of terrible publicity over players disrespecting or assaulting women, including several very serious sexual assault allegations. Players disrespecting females had become commonplace. In previous years Souths and Bulldog clubs had recognised a significant cultural problem and made some moves to modify this, with limited effect.
Attitudes to women have always been somewhat problematic in the game, given traditional values and the game's working-class roots. Add in the all-male team environments, the deliberate focus on encouraging aggressive ‘Alpha male’ behaviours, and the convention of bonding sessions involving binge drinking of alcohol. And top it off with the glamour status and high incomes of the modern professional player. It had become a recipe for PR disaster. The Matthew Johns scandal and the revelation at deBelin’s trial about ‘standard buns’ gave mere glimpses into an entrenched culture which was highly problematic.
The game responded with tough-talking speeches, the new measures for players accused of wrongdoing, and also by boosting investment in the womens game.
Player power - now players are getting political!
In 2019 some players from both teams refused to sing the National Anthem at an Origin game.
Traditionally players would play, and it was only club officials or the game’s administrators that would ever comment publicly on broader issues in the community.
There was a vicious backlash from some fans. Nevertheless, within 18 months, the Governor-General had announced changes to the wording of the Australian National Anthem. The action of those high profile NRL players had played a part in something that impacted the entire nation.
Aside from issues around the continuing disadvantage of Indigenous people, NRL players have publicly raised other issues such as racism in the game, as well as other player welfare issues such as mental health and the possibility of permanent disability through repetitive sub-concussive brain injuries.
These have been player-driven issues, and the NRL has attempted to respond in various ways.
Changing demographics in NRL
Over the past 15 years the proportion of NRL players of Pacific Island heritage has multiplied dramatically. This is not reflected in their representation at other levels of the game, such as within the ARLC or NRL, in club ownership or administration, or in senior coaching roles. These leadership and power positions in the game are filled almost exclusively by whites of European background.
At the current rate of change, we are not too far away from a situation akin to the NFL in America, where 70% of players are African American, but there are zero black owners and 90% of coaches are white.
The tensions generated by this power imbalance, with its associated clash of cultures, all in the context of increasing ‘player power’, came together in spectacular fashion at the Sea Eagles in Jerseygate.
Where to now?
Religious dogma is famous for changing with the times. When Charles Darwin published ‘On the Origin of the Species’ in 1859 the English scientific establishment was closely tied to the Church of England, and science was part of natural theology. The political and theological implications were intensely debated, but Darwin’s transmutation theory was not accepted by the scientific mainstream.
Nowadays it is, and theologians have adapted and reinterpreted their ‘source materials’ to accommodate the new knowledge.
So there must be a realistic prospect that the rebel players may change their view, or at least that the different cultures will move closer together. Eventually.
Meanwhile, the current players not only have their beliefs and their values, but a new-found realisation of the power of their collective voice. Before Jerseygate, the idea that half a team would pull out of an important NRL game on a matter of personal principle and religion was, frankly, unthinkable. Now, we will actually expect it, if the circumstances are repeated.
“Help! Please keep politics out of sport!”
Was the Everyone in League jersey a player-driven initiative, or owner-driven? Either way, inclusiveness in the game remains problematic. If that was ever in doubt before Jerseygate, it is certainly obvious now.
One really doesn’t have to look too closely into the game of rugby league and its history and the competing interests of the people who run it and play it, to realise politics is intrinsically and necessarily involved.
But this is by no means a negative.
The issue is not whether we should or even can keep politics out of sport, but rather, whether we can clearly identify at any point in time what the competing political interests are.
And whether we are strong and brave enough to acknowledge which side of a conflict we support. And then to do so, knowing it will hurt.
______________________________________________________
Acknowledgements
'guzzle guzzle guzzle pour it down the muzzle' is a cute line I stole from the Sea Eagles victory song, without permission, sorry everyone.
Also the term 'standard bun' is not original, it was a term used by Angus Crichton at one of those rape trials
The pictures are not mine either, I stole them from google or someone.
The definition of politics, I forget where i stole that from, may have been Wiki, same with the bit about Charles Darwin. Gawd, next time I should send them a couple of dollars, they're always asking.
And, as I already mentioned above, I did recently watch Dave Zirin's excellent doco on the NFL and that's where I got the stats about NFL players and owners. It got me wondering about some parallels (and differences) with NRL. (I also mentioned this doco previously in the Netflix thread, well worth a look if anyone's interested).
Meaning…? Meaning, more often than not, there are people in the organisation working to shore up their position, manoeuvre for ascendancy, or force out a rival to their power.
So what is ‘politics’, anyway?
Politics can be thought of as government and parliaments, but of course it is much broader than that. Definitions of politics usually include ideas such as, the set of activities associated with making decisions in groups, or other forms of power relations among individuals.
Power. It’s really about power. In any given context, who has it, who wants it, and what they are all doing to either protect or acquire it.
“Keep politics out of sport!”
A popular cry in recent times, certainly among Sea Eagle fans. The dream is entirely appealing, and understandable. Most of us watch sport to take our minds off our worldly worries and the state of the nation. So, let’s keep sport - or at least our own club - unified behind a common objective.
How hard can it be? Everyone, from top to bottom in the organisation, focussed on a strategy for success, on and off the field, allowing the players to get on with winning games. No factions, no distractions. No jealousies or personal power plays. No divisive red herring issues.
After all, it is possible. Isn’t it?
No, it is not possible to eliminate all division and rivalries. But it is possible to keep a lid on them, for periods of time, as is necessary to win a premiership. For 15 years Storm have largely managed it. Roosters for over 10. But to see how difficult it is just look at the last couple of years at the Broncos, one of the most powerful of all clubs. Not to mention the intermittent dramas at the Dragons, the Tigers, and Dogs. The Warriors. Eels. The Titans, and Raiders. Knights! And, of course, at the Sea Eagles.
A plethora of conflicts can and do arise in a club: issues between administrators; or between administrators and owners; or sponsors and owners; or between owners and coaches, or coaches and players, player agents and owners. Between players and other players. Players and other player’s wives!
OK, but at least keep out all the external politics
Can’t we? That depends what we mean by external politics.
Rugby league by its nature has an elemental attraction and a broad appeal that captures the imagination of fans. For this reason it has always also attracted politicians, keen to be seen at high profile games and events. They want to be recognised and they want their political agendas associated with the popular game, and with the values the game represents.
This is the same reason corporate sponsors want to be associated with the game.
So, what are the values associated with rugby league?
Firstly, working class solidarity. Rugby league had begun in 1895 when clubs in the working class north of England broke away from the RFU. They wanted to compensate their working-class players who couldn’t afford to pay rent or feed their families if they took time off work for injuries or rugby tours. The RFU refused, saying 'if men couldn't afford to play, then they shouldn't play at all'. The breakaway league was an instant hit and attracted good crowds.
At its heart the key messaging and values have always been around manliness. In particular, around working-class ideals of manhood. From the beginning, the need for a man to be able to support his family.
League obviously is an extremely tough game to play, and it embodies the need for men to be tough. Not only tough but brave, because you know you will be hurt. Put your body on the line for your mates. For your ‘tribe’. Be disciplined, in fitness and teamwork. Be stoic, don’t show pain, keep getting up.
Has anything changed?
Of course. Things always change. In Australia change came most dramatically with the advent of poker machines in licenced leagues clubs, semi-professionalism, and significantly, the introduction of television and the broadcasting of the game.
Within a short time corporations were starting to jump on board.
The branding of the game was still as the ultimate working man’s game, but increasingly over time the values became corporate values. All about the bottom line. And the players treated increasingly like cattle.
With the big matches consistently dominating TV ratings, the advertising value to broadcasters was ballooning. When pay TV came along, control of this gold mine was at the heart of what became the Murdoch v Packer Super League war.
Simply the best
The branding of the game was becoming more sophisticated. League stars represented simply the best of manhood. Still tough and brave, as always, but with skyrocketing pay packets at the top level, there was now a distinct increase in glamour.
The corollary of this was the values the game projected for women. Men were the head of the traditional working-class family. Women nurtured and supported. And the girls dressed in skimpy sexy outfits to cheer for the heroes.
Meanwhile, to succeed in the game, men still needed to be aggressive and dominant.
The Alpha male model projected by the game was increasingly at odds with the feminist movement that had been steadily growing since the mid-20th century.
Selling lifestyles
Big tobacco sponsorship in the game starts with WD & HO Wills in 1960 and was continuous through to the Winfield Cup, which only stopped due to government intervention prohibiting tobacco advertising – because of the devastating cost to the community of the side effects of smoking.
Most players, who by necessity were fit and healthy, were not big smokers. But the game was used to promote a smoking lifestyle. To the huge financial benefit of tobacco companies.
By the 21st century the game was awash with alcohol sponsorships. Drinking had always been part of the working man’s lifestyle, and of rugby league culture. Train hard, play hard, drink hard. Guzzle, guzzle, guzzle, pour it down the muzzle.
A report in 2019 found 4 of the world’s largest foreign-owned alcohol companies dominated AFL and NRL advertising.
As with tobacco, this was not through any altruism, generosity or community spirit, but simply because advertising sells. A detailed 2018 Australian Department of Health report concluded that ‘alcohol advertising and promotion increases the likelihood that adolescents will start to use alcohol, and to drink more if they are already using alcohol.’
Now gambling. It is currently impossible to attend a game or watch one on TV without seeing gambling messages. Bet with mates! And as with tobacco and alcohol, this advertising does work to promote and expand a betting culture.
What else?
It doesn’t stop with tobacco, alcohol, and gambling. Nor with promoting the ideal of the alpha male and supportive, decorative roles for females.
Sport and especially rugby league works to reinforce the dominant status quo in powerful ways we don’t even realise. Ways we may not see as political. There is a hidden history that corporate sports media is not interested in reporting.
Example – the combative nature of the sport and its values – and language – are useful to promote the armed services. How many times have we seen the game used in order to promote militarist and patriotic themes? This has become so commonplace that many fans just assume it is 'normal'.
This year, with US-China tensions in the Pacific and some of our leading politicians openly using terms like ‘war footing’, rugby league games featured solemn military remembrance ceremonies not just on ANZAC Day, which fell on 25 April, but also on 21 April.
Oh, and also on 22 April. And on 23 April and 24 April.
The game gets tough on misogyny
A few years ago the NRL announced new measures including automatic no-fault ‘stand-downs’ in the wake of a deluge of terrible publicity over players disrespecting or assaulting women, including several very serious sexual assault allegations. Players disrespecting females had become commonplace. In previous years Souths and Bulldog clubs had recognised a significant cultural problem and made some moves to modify this, with limited effect.
Attitudes to women have always been somewhat problematic in the game, given traditional values and the game's working-class roots. Add in the all-male team environments, the deliberate focus on encouraging aggressive ‘Alpha male’ behaviours, and the convention of bonding sessions involving binge drinking of alcohol. And top it off with the glamour status and high incomes of the modern professional player. It had become a recipe for PR disaster. The Matthew Johns scandal and the revelation at deBelin’s trial about ‘standard buns’ gave mere glimpses into an entrenched culture which was highly problematic.
The game responded with tough-talking speeches, the new measures for players accused of wrongdoing, and also by boosting investment in the womens game.
Player power - now players are getting political!
In 2019 some players from both teams refused to sing the National Anthem at an Origin game.
Traditionally players would play, and it was only club officials or the game’s administrators that would ever comment publicly on broader issues in the community.
There was a vicious backlash from some fans. Nevertheless, within 18 months, the Governor-General had announced changes to the wording of the Australian National Anthem. The action of those high profile NRL players had played a part in something that impacted the entire nation.
Aside from issues around the continuing disadvantage of Indigenous people, NRL players have publicly raised other issues such as racism in the game, as well as other player welfare issues such as mental health and the possibility of permanent disability through repetitive sub-concussive brain injuries.
These have been player-driven issues, and the NRL has attempted to respond in various ways.
Changing demographics in NRL
Over the past 15 years the proportion of NRL players of Pacific Island heritage has multiplied dramatically. This is not reflected in their representation at other levels of the game, such as within the ARLC or NRL, in club ownership or administration, or in senior coaching roles. These leadership and power positions in the game are filled almost exclusively by whites of European background.
At the current rate of change, we are not too far away from a situation akin to the NFL in America, where 70% of players are African American, but there are zero black owners and 90% of coaches are white.
The tensions generated by this power imbalance, with its associated clash of cultures, all in the context of increasing ‘player power’, came together in spectacular fashion at the Sea Eagles in Jerseygate.
Where to now?
Religious dogma is famous for changing with the times. When Charles Darwin published ‘On the Origin of the Species’ in 1859 the English scientific establishment was closely tied to the Church of England, and science was part of natural theology. The political and theological implications were intensely debated, but Darwin’s transmutation theory was not accepted by the scientific mainstream.
Nowadays it is, and theologians have adapted and reinterpreted their ‘source materials’ to accommodate the new knowledge.
So there must be a realistic prospect that the rebel players may change their view, or at least that the different cultures will move closer together. Eventually.
Meanwhile, the current players not only have their beliefs and their values, but a new-found realisation of the power of their collective voice. Before Jerseygate, the idea that half a team would pull out of an important NRL game on a matter of personal principle and religion was, frankly, unthinkable. Now, we will actually expect it, if the circumstances are repeated.
“Help! Please keep politics out of sport!”
Was the Everyone in League jersey a player-driven initiative, or owner-driven? Either way, inclusiveness in the game remains problematic. If that was ever in doubt before Jerseygate, it is certainly obvious now.
One really doesn’t have to look too closely into the game of rugby league and its history and the competing interests of the people who run it and play it, to realise politics is intrinsically and necessarily involved.
But this is by no means a negative.
The issue is not whether we should or even can keep politics out of sport, but rather, whether we can clearly identify at any point in time what the competing political interests are.
And whether we are strong and brave enough to acknowledge which side of a conflict we support. And then to do so, knowing it will hurt.
______________________________________________________
Acknowledgements
'guzzle guzzle guzzle pour it down the muzzle' is a cute line I stole from the Sea Eagles victory song, without permission, sorry everyone.
Also the term 'standard bun' is not original, it was a term used by Angus Crichton at one of those rape trials
The pictures are not mine either, I stole them from google or someone.
The definition of politics, I forget where i stole that from, may have been Wiki, same with the bit about Charles Darwin. Gawd, next time I should send them a couple of dollars, they're always asking.
And, as I already mentioned above, I did recently watch Dave Zirin's excellent doco on the NFL and that's where I got the stats about NFL players and owners. It got me wondering about some parallels (and differences) with NRL. (I also mentioned this doco previously in the Netflix thread, well worth a look if anyone's interested).
Last edited:
) if you have gone to the trouble to actually write this yourself. ( I know you will read this SER8) I take back my initial comment. Your efforts should be respected. If you have just plagiarised other peoples work and conflated it then my initial comments stand.
