Analysis Is it acceptable for AFL clubs to be politically biased?

[faible]

You're very right about that, the AFL will use that person and thrust them into the spotlight to show the wider public how progressive they are.

What the AFL needs to do is to publicly say they do have gay AFL players, of course they know who they are, no it doesn't matter and it's nobody's business. Completely surrender the position so they can't throw the player under the bus of publicity to make the AFL look better.

Currently everyone knows they are signing up for the circus if they step out, not to mention the blokey culture that exists around.

I'd take a stab that most clubs have a player, or players, who are gay, and that in all likelihood the playing group, coaches and possibly the media all know about it, but also recognise that there's nothing to be gained from making it public.

I suppose the AFL could come out and officially say that they have gay players in the league, but then that just leaves people speculating about "ooh is x player at that club gay?" then "oh that bloke is definitely gay, i'm going to have a few words to say next time he's kicking for goal" and so on.

 

[Dan Moody]

Yes, the last two decades of sharply rising Australian house prices and sharply rising Australian bank profits proves this theory.

Are you by any chance starting a Commerce degree this year?

Why Melbourne property prices have skyrocketed to a new record high

Despite predictions that COVID-19 would lead to a property market collapse, house and unit prices in Melbourne hit record highs in December. Domain data reveals the median house price in Melbourne is now an eye-watering $936,073, up by 5.3 per cent in the final three months of 2020. Median...

www.3aw.com.au

 

[ApplecrossWC]

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Every AFL club has a supporter base which covers a broad political spectrum and injecting themselves into political debates is a great way of sending a message that supporters of certain political leanings aren't welcome. Or unless there's a broad consensus for the political position in Australian society, but that really isn't Australia Day where you have a majority who want to keep the date as it is and a very irate minority who don't, and clubs injecting themselves into the debate by calling for a day everyone can celebrate are coming out against the majority of their fanbases.

There's a few posters suggesting if people who don't like their clubs position you should simply support another club, but do you really want a super-polarised society where even your recreational activities and the people you meet during it are selected to match your political biases? It's been a very worrying trend in the US and shouldn't be imported here.

And finally with all of that said clubs are going to do this anyway. Too many activists on too many issues are pushing clubs to make political statements out of a belief that sport clubs are better served leading political debates than acting as a unifying force in society, and there's simply too much pressure to not just be seen as being with the zeitgeist.

As Bunk Moreland rightly pointed out these issues are not political, they have been made political. I doubt you'll see clubs campaigning on different economic policies or whether states should receive additional federal funding for schools/hospitals. This is about social inclusion and people having empathy for others. Oh the horror!!

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Just have 2 Australia days so we can have an extra public holiday

Jan 2nd Australia Day
Jan 26th Reconciliation Day

Win/win

 

[Demonic Ascent]

That view isn't particularly helpful.

People follow and watch sports for entertainment and as an escape from reality and for example politics.

So I understand why some people get fed up with a sport promoting a certain political view as that is not why we engage with it.

Right, but those same people are happy to have the national anthem playing pregame/pre-finals and commemorating the armed forces on ANZAC Day I bet.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Far left.

The balanced view is why mix sports and politics?

If I want to involve myself in politics I will watch those shows, read those papers, engage on line on political forums. And I do.

So why should anyone need to stop watching sport (which is your option suggested) because politics is being jammed down my throat? Why should anyone be forced to stop watching a game because some political or media group has hijacked a popular sporting league / forum to peddle their political ideology?

"Jammed down your throat"? In what way?

 

[Instincts]

"Jammed down your throat"? In what way?

It's people like this that will complain about the left being offended (supposedly) by everything but the moment a non-political figure posts one thing they disagree with then that's when they complain.

FFS it's one or two posts a year if you can't handle it then there is a button which is called 'unfollow' it will help you out a lot

 

[What else we can do]

Historically VFL clubs were considered politically aligned, as well as religiously aligned. Traditionally was:
Collingwood, Richmond, North, Fitzroy, St Kilda, Footscray - Labor/Catholic
Melbourne, Hawthorn, Carlton, Geelong, Essendon - Liberal/Protestant

Was Kevin Sheedy the first Catholic coach of Essendon?

 

[madmug]

You're obviously one of them.

If you cannot stomach what a player, club or league is promoting then you always have the option of protesting it, cancelling memberships, stop watching etc. If the AFL want to ban all political statements, also up to them, and then you can also vote with your social media account, wallet or TV viewing etc.

Or just ignore it & watch the game. Like the umpiring.

 

[Purple_Turtle]

As Bunk Moreland rightly pointed out these issues are not political, they have been made political.

It's an issue related to government policy where there is disagreement in the general public. Not sure what your definition of political is, but for mine that definitely counts as political.

And if you want to talk about who made it political I'd suggest the minority of people demanding change while most of the country sit back and enjoy the day are to blame, even if they do have a point.

 

[BluStreak]

Are sporting organisations exempt from paying tax like many religious groups are? There's your answer.

so if you pay money you can have a voice.

 

[sr36]

I’ve noticed a recent trend of AFL clubs making comment on political issues, such as Australia Day etc.

Is it fair for them to make comment on issues that over 50% of their members disagree with?

Who decides to post on behalf of the club on this stuff?

Discuss.

Rightly or wrongly, it's become unavoidable. Choosing not to comment is political, as we see with the Libs choosing not to censure Craig Kelly's remarks. Any club that chose not to recognise and respond to the BLM movement or any other movement is making a political statement.

 

[theyellowsash]

You don’t believe.

Well that decides it then.

I dont believe the coronavirus is a big deal.

Problem solved guys. Now we can all go back to the footy and stack can visit strip clubs in peace. Rejoice!

 

[Demonic Ascent]

It's an issue related to government policy where there is disagreement in the general public. Not sure what your definition of political is, but for mine that definitely counts as political.

And if you want to talk about who made it political I'd suggest the minority of people demanding change while most of the country sit back and enjoy the day are to blame, even if they do have a point.

Being considerate of others is not political.

 

[Purple_Turtle]

Being considerate of others is not political.

Sure. I reckon it would be pretty considerate if the government taxed everyone less and decriminalised drugs. Can I say these aren't political issues now?

 

[Ron The Bear]

Choosing not to comment is political

Utter horseshit. You can't force people or organisations to take sides.

 

[sr36]

Utter horseshit. You can't force people or organisations to take sides.

Totally disagree. Choosing to be apolitical is a political decision. With so many sporting clubs choosing to show respect for the BLM movement, clubs had no choice but to discuss and make a political decision about how they were going to respond. The same goes with a lot of issues. But perhaps we're just defining political differently.

 

[telsor]

Every time a body I'm affiliated with in any way makes a political statement, I cringe.

I just want to put out a blanket "As a member/supporter/whatever of <organisation> I disassociate myself from this statement." statement.

Even if I do agree with what they're saying, THEY DO NOT REPRESENT ME in anything beyond the activity I follow them for, and as such I'd very much prefer they didn't pretend to speak for me.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Totally disagree. Choosing to be apolitical is a political decision. With so many sporting clubs choosing to show respect for the BLM movement, clubs had no choice but to discuss and make a political decision about how they were going to respond. The same goes with a lot of issues. But perhaps we're just defining political differently.

Hogwash. Not having a public position might simply be due to a difference of opinion among club leaders.

No club "had" to take a stance on BLM. Plenty of people have seen the manifesto... their whack-job anti-family views are sufficient on their own to alienate many.

 

[sr36]

Hogwash. Not having a public position might simply be due to a difference of opinion among club leaders.

No club "had" to take a stance on BLM. Plenty of people have seen the manifesto... their whack-job anti-family views are sufficient on their own to alienate many.

They had to choose whether or not to take a stance. And choosing not to take a stance was impossible, as that in and of itself would have been a stance.

 

[Ron The Bear]

They had to choose whether or not to take a stance. And choosing not to take a stance was impossible, as that in and of itself would have been a stance.

Not kneeling might've said we don't do politics, it might've said BLM/St.George is a foreign issue, it might've said our club has no consensus view, it might've said we're not sure about BLM's drivers or it might've said we reject the BLM movement outright. Of course some people would label it racism and attempt to stir up public sentiment against the club. And that's the evil.

 

[sr36]

Not kneeling might've said we don't do politics, it might've said BLM/St.George is a foreign issue, it might've said our club has no consensus view, it might've said we're not sure about BLM's drivers or it might've said we reject the BLM movement outright. Of course some people would label it racism and attempt to stir up public sentiment against the club. And that's the evil.

Yes, it might have said these things. Which is my point. It would have been a stance and a political statement.

 

[CM9000]

Wait, how are clubs engaging in political advocacy, or promoting a certain bias? I’m not sure if aome of the examples people are providing can be called that.

Hogwash. Not having a public position might simply be due to a difference of opinion among club leaders.

No club "had" to take a stance on BLM. Plenty of people have seen the manifesto... their whack-job anti-family views are sufficient on their own to alienate many.

What do you mean by “anti-family“ views in BLM? I don’t recall seeing that anywhere.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Yes, it might have said these things. Which is my point. It would have been a stance and a political statement.

No, you'd only be guessing at the stance.