Read + Write + Report
Home | Start a blog | About Orble | FAQ | Sites | Writers | Advertise | My Orble | Login

Sport: The Australian Disease - sportingaustralia.com

On its knees

October 15th 2008 14:55
Of late, a financial flu has started spreading around the world. It is highly contagious, capable of travelling rapidly, infecting indiscriminately and striking down even those who once seemed flushed with life. Such is the panic that individuals, families, corporations and governments have suddenly been confronted with their own mortality, and forced to ponder a dreadful question: will I survive?


Presumably, Australia’s major sports must also be giving serious thought to how they act in the face of this pandemic. All of them are exposed, although, as is the way with disease, the strong are less vulnerable than the weak. At times such as these, vitality is no longer about appearances, but a matter of cold, hard fact. Organisations that have been displaying an impressive façade, but are actually structurally unsound, are about to have their shaky foundations exposed. Tiger-like strength will be needed to fight this financial flu, which means that it is not enough to be a paper tiger. If it does nothing else, the global crisis will ruthlessly separate those sports that are weak from those that are strong. A reckoning is at hand.

David Gallop and the rest of the NRL powerbrokers must be fearing for the long-term health of their game. The 100th anniversary of the domestic competition was meant to be a celebration, a time to call upon reminiscences of a glorious history in the service of creating a brighter future. Instead, it may come to be regarded as a turning point, as the year in which rugby league began to lose its status as a member of the Australian sporting aristocracy.


The comparisons with the other three footballing codes are unflattering. While they are often the source of good news, much of the last NRL season was spent in soul-searching and finger-pointing. There was considerable debate about the code’s television deal, which generates far less revenue than the AFL’s. There was considerable fretting about the deep pockets of rugby union, which openly covets its rival’s stars. There was considerable embarrassment about the Olympic stadium, which frequently looked near-empty during matches. And there was considerable despair about the defection of Sonny Bill Williams, who was so anxious to be done with the NRL that he paid $750,000 for the privilege. Amidst all this negativity, not even 16,000 people could be coaxed to an average game (compared to 37,000 in the AFL and 14,500 in the emerging A-League).

Nothing better exemplifies rugby league’s superficial strength than its upcoming World Cup. Inviting teams from all over the globe has only served to highlight the fact that the sport contains just three meaningful bases: the east coast of Australia, the north of England and the North Island of New Zealand. The chest-puffing is patently ridiculous, because even the most parochial fan knows that it will never be able to provide the sort of credible international competition that is taken for granted by cricket, union and football.

Tellingly, where rugby league is deceptively strong, rugby union is deceptively weak. For several years, ARU chief executive John O’Neill has been sounding an alarm, warning supporters of waning domestic interest, falling participation rates and a weakening budgetary position. Faced with these valid concerns, what does he do? He schedules an additional Bledisloe Cup test for Hong Kong and watches the money roll in. A bandaid solution it may be, yet it is one that illustrates his code’s superior position. What fixture could Gallop organise if he wanted an injection of funds? After all, the poor bloke can’t even sell out his grand final.

While rugby league may be impotent abroad, that shouldn’t necessarily prevent it from maintaining a strong domestic position. For one shouldn’t forget that Australia’s leading sporting competition is the AFL, which plays no internationals (notwithstanding the annual round of Irish bashing). But at the very moment that the sport needs to muster its strength, it is deteriorating. Assistance from league’s clubs is diminishing. Television rights fees are expected to diminish. And in these troubling financial times, sponsorship dollars and gate receipts are certain to diminish.

Reduced income in turn focuses attention on the NRL’s wobbly structures. Five teams in Queensland, Canberra and Auckland make sense, one team in Melbourne kind of makes sense, while 10 teams in NSW makes absolutely no sense. Sydney, the heartland, should be providing the competition with its lifeblood, but because it supports so many clubs, the city is actually draining the life out of the NRL. Given that Andrew Demetriou, with his superior revenue streams, struggles to keep 10 Victorian clubs afloat, what chance does David Gallop have of sustaining 10 teams in NSW?

If one was to start again- as football did a few years ago, when it replaced the NSL with the A-League- there would perhaps be four Sydney teams, four Queensland teams, along with another six from Melbourne, Canberra, Newcastle, Auckland, Perth and the Central Coast. It is much too late, however, for rugby league to start again. Although the rotten house needs to be torn down and carefully rebuilt, the fans would never allow it. The only thing they will permit is for fresh paint to be applied to the walls and sealer to be applied to the gaps, as all the while the building’s foundations, carefully concealed from view, continue their decay.

Football may have been able to start over, but rugby league has long since passed the point of no return. It can do nothing but doggedly press forward. Unfortunately, though, the future seems to be one of diminished finances and thus diminished relevance, a decline that will only be accelerated by the current credit crisis.

Many will laugh at talk of the game’s demise; it’s too big, they’ll say, and too securely established. Perhaps they’re right. But didn’t they say the same thing about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?
33
Vote
Shared on
   


Stalin
During the time of Stalin, it was the fate of many senior Bolsheviks to fall foul of the Great Father of the Soviet Union. Typically, these ex-leaders would not merely be tortured and executed, but also deleted from the historical record, as if they had never existed. Their images would be airbrushed from photographs, their portraits would be removed from government buildings, their deeds would be edited out of encyclopaedias, their names would be taken out of textbooks. They would become ‘unpersons’.

Tony Zappia, the chief executive of the Cronulla Sharks, seems to be a student of history, because Greg Bird has just begun to disappear from his club’s historical record. Although he has yet to be airbrushed from the team photo, and although he is still on the contract list, he is no longer to be found amongst the player profiles.

Why has Greg Bird become an unperson? Well, you won’t find the answer in Cronulla’s news section, whose journalists are apparently unaware that the club’s star five-eighth has lately gotten himself into a spot of bother. You will, however, find the answer many times over by paying attention to the rest of the nation’s media, which seems determined to keep Bird’s memory alive.

So why is the media so keen on Bird? The answer to that question- just like the answer to so many others- is money. Who wouldn’t want to buy a newspaper or flick on the news to learn the latest lurid details of his alleged offence? And how lurid those details are. According to the allegations, the former Kangaroo glassed his girlfriend, Katie Milligan, before pinning the blame on his friend, Brent Watson. “How do you feel about that?” Bird is said to have asked Watson.

Presumably, Watson didn’t feel all that good about it. Nor did Zappia, which is why he placed Bird on indefinite suspension, and had his profile removed from the club’s website. At the same time, he staked a bold- if muddled- claim to the moral high ground. “Obviously, at the moment, he’s under police investigation…We’ve got sponsors to think about and we’re ensuring the integrity of the brand.”

Cronulla Shark Greg Bird
Greg Bird, how do you feel about your suspension?

However principled he tried to sound, Zappia could not hide the fact that the Sharks- just like the sharks in the media- were in it for the money. For it shouldn’t be forgotten that this was just the latest in a long line of scandals that Bird has gotten himself- and thus his employer- into. On previous occasions, although the Sharks talked tough, they failed to take any meaningful action against their star, understanding that for all the embarrassment he had caused them, they were more likely to be successful with him than without him.

Had these latest allegations not been so serious, it would not have been surprising if Bird had not received the latest in a long line of slaps on the wrist. But while all manner of loutish misdeeds can be covered up or hosed down, neither the public nor the sponsors would have accepted anything less than an indefinite suspension for Milligan’s horrific injuries. If self-interest had formerly compelled Cronulla to support Bird, this time it was clearly in the club’s interest to dump him.

Different though they were, the Bird scandal has a lot in common with the previous example of footballers behaving badly- that is, the incident involving Alan Didak and Heath Shaw. Just like Cronulla, Collingwood felt compelled to come down hard on two important players, whose misbehaviour, it could be argued, may never had occurred had those repeat offenders not been indulged in the past.

Indeed, Sport: The Australian Disease presaged this very thing:

When, in the not too distant future, a footballer is discovered to have assaulted something he oughtn’t have assaulted, crashed something he oughtn’t have crashed, or (yawn) bonked something he oughtn’t have bonked- as he inevitably will- the reaction of his club will be enlightening. A ruthless, narrowly-focussed outfit will attempt to make light of the scandal. A more contemplative and courageous organisation will try to nip the ill-discipline in the bud. Or, there will be the third scenario, in which a formerly indulgent club is left with no option but to furiously slam the stable door shut, long after its [errant] horse has bolted.

If the comparison between the NRL and AFL clubs is valid, then it is worth considering the noises that have lately begun to come out of Collingwood. Having initially let it be known that Shaw and Didak would not merely be suspended for the rest of the season, but also booted out once it had concluded, the Magpies have started dropping subtle hints that either or both of them might somehow ‘prove’ that they deserved to be retained.

Like the Magpies, the Sharks have unofficially declared that Bird will never wear their colours again. And, if the allegations turn out to be true, that is certain to be the case. However, should the star manage to find a way out of this mess, it would not be surprising if he was able to ‘prove’ to Cronulla that he had learned his lesson and deserved another chance. True, his arguments might not make sense to the punters, but it won’t be their heads clouded by money.
46
Vote
Shared on
   


Sorry Money Bill- the cap fits

August 2nd 2008 02:53
In the week since Sonny Bill Williams’s defection, talk of salary caps has dominated the sports’ pages.

Are they fair? Are they effective? Are they legal?

The question of legality is a hazy one. Gazing upon salary caps with laymen’s eyes, they would appear to be unlawful. After all, the idea of a cartel (the clubs) imposing a restraint of trade on its employees (by limiting the size of their pay-packets) seems to run counter to the rules of the market economy that operates in Australia.

Yet in the eyes of experts- or at least some of them- a cap can be legitimate. While the informed opinions to have appeared in our newspapers have not been unanimous, several have asserted that an artificial wage ceiling could hold up in court, provided that it was shown to be in the players’ long term interests. In other words, if the court was convinced that the restraint of trade was an enlightened measure, rather than an unscrupulous one, it might be deemed legal.

But talk of courts and cartels is best left for the lawyers. The question that most concerns fans is not whether a cap is legal, but whether it is effective, and, to a lesser extent, whether it is fair. A general perception seems to exist that elite athletes are overpaid and over-indulged, so most supporters would probably think it reasonable that a limit should be placed on their wages. For all Anthony Mundine’s talk of how “brother” Sonny Bill had been victimised, and of how he should be left to count his Euros in peace, it would be astonishing if most armchair observers did not regard Williams as the latest in a long line of genetically-gifted brats. “They already get too much money,” many of these punters would surely grumble. “They should count their lucky stars that they don’t have to work in a factory, or down a mine. If they don’t like the salary cap, I’ll gladly swap places with the bludgers.”

If we assume that salary caps are both legal and fair, we then get to the heart of the matter: do they work? Like all things in life, they are imperfect creations, containing a blend of good and bad. The main point to be made on the debit side is the way in which they reward mediocrity. A dynamic club that promotes its sport, enthuses its market and provides high-quality service to its fans will generate more revenue than a lacklustre organisation- yet it will not be able to spend even a cent more on recruitment. In a free market, there is a great incentive to be dynamic- profits that can be spent as the fancy takes- but that incentive is greatly diminished in wage-regulated competitions. Of course, it is still better to make more money than less- you can devote greater resources to coaches and facilities; you can put some aside for a rainy day- but because the return on investment is reduced, so is the incentive to invest. Why put all that energy into devising a clever promotion, why take all that risk in constructing a new grandstand, when the extra money you might make will give you precious little advantage over your less resourceful rivals? You don’t need to be a student of economics to appreciate that salary caps stifle initiative.

The main point to be made on the credit side is the way in which salary caps level the playing field. Given that people watch sport to be entertained, and given that close contests are more dramatic than mismatches, any device that can even out a competition makes it more appealing. One of the reasons that the AFL and A-League are so fascinating is the knowledge that all fans have a genuine opportunity, within a reasonable timeframe, to celebrate a grand final win. This is largely due to the salary cap.

For it is important to understand that the cliché of sporting success being cyclical is no longer as applicable as it once was. Today, our leagues are national and professional, well removed from their suburban roots. Back in the good old days, revenue streams did not flow nearly as freely, and recruitment was a far more localised affair. If a club had not been blessed with the most talented of juniors, there was precious little it could do about it, other than count down the days until a more gifted bunch passed through the door. When that day came, they would rise, their highflying rivals would fall, and so the cycle would continue its virtuous spin.

But in the 21st century, where revenue comes not in dribs and drabs from chook raffles, but in the millions from media moguls, there is something clubs could do to rapidly climb the table. They could buy a better team. If no restraints were placed on the sporting marketplace, there is the real danger that a different kind of cycle could become institutionalised- a cycle in which success begets success and failure begets failure. Given that more successful clubs generate more revenue (through television deals, sponsorships, merchandising, match day attendances and the like), they would be able to spend more money on recruitment than their poorer rivals, thereby cementing their place at the top of the ladder, and thereby generating more revenue.

For proof, we need only look at the English Premier League. The Big Four of Manchester United, Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool use their financial muscle to recruit the best players, which allows them to challenge for trophies, which provides them with the money and cache to recruit the best players. Meanwhile, their weaker rivals have no choice but to stock up on weaker players, which inhibits them from challenging for trophies, which prevents them from acquiring the money and cache to recruit the sort of players that the Big Four possess. Although it must be acknowledged that the Big Four are dynamic- they are constantly upgrading stadiums, travelling on promotional tours, and investing in their sporting schemes- this dynamism comes at the EPL’s expense. It is an indictment of the competition that even supporters of famous clubs such as Tottenham and Aston Villa cannot reasonably hope, within the near future, to celebrate a title. Hence Kevin Keegan’s insightful observation: “This league is in danger of becoming one of the most boring but great leagues in the world.”

Where Australian sport is concerned, the negatives of salary caps are outweighed by the positives. Do we want to see a NRL in which Brisbane inevitably lifts the trophy every year? Or would we prefer our competitions to be governed along the lines of the A-League, in which a David such as the Central Coast Mariners can triumph over a Goliath like Sydney FC? If the sporting market was to be stripped of regulation, stars like Sonny Bill Williams would be more generously rewarded for their talent, and clubs like Collingwood would be more generously rewarded for their dynamism, but who would care? If the stars always headed to the big clubs and if the big clubs always won, what would be the point? The cost of a salary cap may be to lose the Williams’s of this world, but it is surely a price worth paying.
48
Vote
Shared on
   


It’s an extraordinary coincidence: whenever sportsmen are ‘mistreated’ and ‘forced out’ of their clubs, it is always to more successful, or more prestigious, or more generous rivals that they are ‘driven’. None of these people ever seem to wind up at weaker clubs, or with lesser deals.

So it is with Sonny Bill Williams. Having been ‘mistreated’ by Canterbury, he has now been ‘forced’ to explore his options in France’s domestic rugby competition. He will not be unaware that thanks to the combination of ambitious owners and a non-existent salary cap, teams in the Top 14 have never been paying higher salaries. According to reports, a young star like Williams, who is said to be on $450,000 a year with the Bulldogs, could earn more than triple that amount. Of course, no amount of money could ever make up for the suffering he has undoubtedly been subjected to by the Bulldogs- but hopefully all those Euros will go some way to easing the pain


[ Click here to read more ]
47
Vote
Shared on
   


Nick Bendel's Blogs

I have no other blogs :(
Moderated by Nick Bendel
Copyright © 2006 2007 2008 On Topic Media PTY LTD. All Rights Reserved. Design by Vimu.com.
On Topic Media ZPages: Sydney |  Melbourne |  Brisbane |  London |  Birmingham |  Leeds     [ Advertise ] [ Contact Us ] [ Privacy Policy ]