Socceroos: The Sport for Business and our Future

[BacharHouli_43]

Will we have to wait another 4 years before seeing the Socceroos on free to air tv in Australia. What's up with that, aren't the free to air commercial tv networks interested?

I have foxtel and love watching the socceroos, but everyone should have the right to watch the socceroos and also the wallabies. The problem with free-to-air networks is that they stupidly show ads during the actual match as ch 9 did. But I reckon that problem will go. FFA should give the rights to someone like ch 10, who may look upon football as a long term investment.

Also, for the olympics, we should pick a-league players with future socceroo potential or just simply pick under-23 players

 

[Chuq]

Socceroos got 70,000 for a WC qualifier? Well done.

They just beat Collingwood's MCG attendance average for 10 home and away games so far this year - of 68,122.

I don't see anyone claiming anything about AFL crowds.. but, since you want to play the statistics game, I'll bite.

First just an observation: Of the ten Collingwood games at the MCG, seven of them were against teams based in the same stadium or at most 5km away, and one was against a team 100km away. It's safe to say that the crowd represented a mix of both teams supporters. This is further demonstrated by the fact that of the two games against teams which are actually based AWAY from Collingwood's home stadium, the average was 49,175.

Ok, onto the statistics.

Above you compared a club average with a single international crowd. Let's do it the other way round:

- Melbourne Victory average last season - 26,064
- Highest AFL international crowd in the last year - 0

But AFL doesn't have international competition, so that's a little unfair. Lets try it a different way -

At the highest level in Australia:
- Socceroos - 12 month average (home games) - 53,957
- AFL - this year 38,522

At the second highest level in Australia:
- A-League - last season - 14,610
- VFL - mostly unavailable (less than 2000 according to Wikipedia).

I'm not actually trying to say anything about various football codes. I'm just trying to say that with statistics, you can prove anything you want.

 

[The Passenger]

i haven't seen anyone point out the serious possibilty of real irony should the socceroo's fail in the final group stage of qualifying, whilst New Zealand get a clear path to the playoff to get into the world cup... especially if NZ were to win that play-off (although i can't see them doing it...)

hopefully the australians can get through. i have no issues with soccer being a competitor to aussie rules. i think both sports cna go hand in hand with no problems

 

[Chuq]

Also, for the olympics, we should pick a-league players with future socceroo potential or just simply pick under-23 players

Just in case you (or anyone else) isn't sure, the olympics IS an under-23 competition. That's why our Olympic team is called the Olyroos, not the Socceroos - they are a different team. And the Olyroos are by definition future Socceroo potential

You may be aware of this, if so I don't mean to be stating the obvious, just the way you worded it I wasn't sure!

I believe the squad is allowed three exception to the U23 rule, I'm not sure if this is for the Olympic tournament or in general.

Note the U23 restriction only applies to the mens football at the Olympics, the womens football team are the Matildas, the same who play at the Women's World Cup, etc.

 

[afl genius]

I don't see anyone claiming anything about AFL crowds.. but, since you want to play the statistics game, I'll bite.

First just an observation: Of the ten Collingwood games at the MCG, seven of them were against teams based in the same stadium or at most 5km away, and one was against a team 100km away. It's safe to say that the crowd represented a mix of both teams supporters. This is further demonstrated by the fact that of the two games against teams which are actually based AWAY from Collingwood's home stadium, the average was 49,175.

Ok, onto the statistics.

Above you compared a club average with a single international crowd. Let's do it the other way round:

- Melbourne Victory average last season - 26,064
- Highest AFL international crowd in the last year - 0

But AFL doesn't have international competition, so that's a little unfair. Lets try it a different way -

At the highest level in Australia:
- Socceroos - 12 month average (home games) - 53,957
- AFL - this year 38,522

At the second highest level in Australia:
- A-League - last season - 14,610
- VFL - mostly unavailable (less than 2000 according to Wikipedia).

I'm not actually trying to say anything about various football codes. I'm just trying to say that with statistics, you can prove anything you want.

yeh thats all well and good, but their are 16 clubs up against 1 nation. With only 2 teams supporters at each game, where as a whole country is at the other, you can see how the average should be in Socceroos favor you would hope for Soccers sakes that they would have a higher crowd average, considering the actual facts

 

[Fender]

But the Socceroos play all around the country, and some stadiums can't even hold more than 50k, take Suncorp for example, only holds 52k, was sold out, would probally hold 70k+ for Socceroos and SOO matches but its simply not possible.

 

[Subprime]

Australia and Argentina have often been compared over the years due to the fact that a century ago the two nations had similar economies.

Both countries were blessed with bountiful resources, both were far away from Europe and both offered a similar standard of living. Here's an example of the scholarship on this issue:

http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/a...aldinelli_argentina/baldinelli_argentina.html

If the OP is too be believed and the act of choosing a particular sport in preference to others is important then it why is it that Argentina is distinctly second world while Australia is a first world nation?

Should we not see Argentina, having adopted soccer all those years ago, reaping the windfall economic benefits of that choice?

After all Argentina is largely a sporting monoculture with soccer dwarfing all other sports in popularity and professionalism. If the OP is to be believed then this would only serve to magnify its economic advantage over Australia.

Australia, on the other hand, has a relatively diverse sporting culture having invented one code of football and adopted 3 others from England. In addition to this cricket is a major player in the professional sports landscape. Soccer has been a relatively minor player until recently.

So if the OP is to be believed and the choice of a particular sport is somehow important for "business and our future" why is it that Argentina today is a basket case, lurching from crisis to crisis, and envied by no one in economic terms.

Australia, on the other hand, having long shut itself off from the supposed economic powerhouse of soccer, is one of the richest nations on earth and offers amongst the highest standard of living on the planet.

 

[gostk86]

But the Socceroos play all around the country, and some stadiums can't even hold more than 50k, take Suncorp for example, only holds 52k, was sold out, would probally hold 70k+ for Socceroos and SOO matches but its simply not possible.

watch though if we get world cup, ffa, government, sponsors etc, would upgrade ANZ stadium to hold 90 000 plus and more complete looking stadium like Wembley

 

[genghiskhan]

Australia and Argentina have often been compared over the years due to the fact that a century ago the two nations had similar economies.

Both countries were blessed with bountiful resources, both were far away from Europe and both offered a similar standard of living. Here's an example of the scholarship on this issue:

http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/a...aldinelli_argentina/baldinelli_argentina.html

If the OP is too be believed and the act of choosing a particular sport in preference to others is important then it why is it that Argentina is distinctly second world while Australia is a first world nation?

Should we not see Argentina, having adopted soccer all those years ago, reaping the windfall economic benefits of that choice?

After all Argentina is largely a sporting monoculture with soccer dwarfing all other sports in popularity and professionalism. If the OP is to be believed then this would only serve to magnify its economic advantage over Australia.

Australia, on the other hand, has a relatively diverse sporting culture having invented one code of football and adopted 3 others from England. In addition to this cricket is a major player in the professional sports landscape. Soccer has been a relatively minor player until recently.

So if the OP is to be believed and the choice of a particular sport is somehow important for "business and our future" why is it that Argentina today is a basket case, lurching from crisis to crisis, and envied by no one in economic terms.

Australia, on the other hand, having long shut itself off from the supposed economic powerhouse of soccer, is one of the richest nations on earth and offers amongst the highest standard of living on the planet.

I've always been of the impression that soccer breeds poor social values. It encourages people to take a dive or win through referee help. Furthermore, it doesn't breed a sense that reward should reflect effort and ability. Finally, soccer hooliganism is a feature of every country in the poor. Even Australia. the hooliganism isn't like that found in Aussie rules or cricket where one or two people make trouble. It is gangs going on rampages.

Countries with those sorts of values will never succeed.

 

[littleduck]

I've always been of the impression that soccer breeds poor social values. It encourages people to take a dive or win through referee help. Furthermore, it doesn't breed a sense that reward should reflect effort and ability. Finally, soccer hooliganism is a feature of every country in the poor. Even Australia. the hooliganism isn't like that found in Aussie rules or cricket where one or two people make trouble. It is gangs going on rampages.

Countries with those sorts of values will never succeed.

Soccer is played in many third world countries and is more often than not embraced by the grassroots as a force for good and social cohesion.

 

[genghiskhan]

Soccer is played in many third world countries and is more often than not embraced by the grassroots as a force for good and social cohesion.

It may be embraced for that reason, but the outcome is different. Which of these third world societies are you referring to that aren't corrupt and have people living happily with each other?

Its interesting that the South African government wants to import Australian rules as a social glue. The country suffers terribly with soccer violence.

 

[Bouvet_Island]

It may be embraced for that reason, but the outcome is different. Which of these third world societies are you referring to that aren't corrupt and have people living happily with each other?

Its interesting that the South African government wants to import Australian rules as a social glue. The country suffers terribly with soccer violence.

Wow. Its amazing how some people swallow the AFL's propoganda so completely.

 

[mustapha]

Wow. Its amazing how some people swallow the AFL's propoganda so completely.

As I understand it the AFL is planning to solve the issues on the Gaza Strip by holding a NAB cup game between Collingwood and Essendon there. This will be followed by a BBQ and an Auskick clinic.

Apparantly Mugabe has also agreed to step down in Zimbabwe. He was impressed with the positive social values when he watched an AFL game on prime time Harare TV. Years of watching soccer made him corrupt and Demetriou has now shown him the light.

 

[Ragnarok14]

I've always been of the impression that soccer breeds poor social values. It encourages people to take a dive or win through referee help. Furthermore, it doesn't breed a sense that reward should reflect effort and ability. Finally, soccer hooliganism is a feature of every country in the poor. Even Australia. the hooliganism isn't like that found in Aussie rules or cricket where one or two people make trouble. It is gangs going on rampages.

Countries with those sorts of values will never succeed.

Soccer is an easy game to play anywhere with little need for training/skill development before you can play a game, thats why its popular in poorer countries, tie some softish stuff together and you can have a game, rules are easy too.

As for poor social values, in a weekend where 26 league fans got arrested for a serious brawl at a train station leaving the match that left a few of them in hospital, it got almost no coverage as the big story was a bunch of young soccer fans throwing a bottle at a police car 'soccer holiganism'.

Another example, big story of soccer holiganism was that at a melbourne victory game people were protesting (peacefully) about not being able to stand on the upper teirs before a game, while the fact that 6 people were arrested for assault at an AFL match the following day got no coverage. Incidents at other sporting events just dont get the same nice headlines that come along with incidents at the soccer.

And finally by your logic, sports like AFL and cricket actually promote devaluation of effort as the reward for runs/points is far less than goals in soccer. I've seen plenty of AFL players playing for frees, cricketers not walking, these things happen in all sports, soccer atleast accepts this happens and is working towards fixing the problem (notice that even if someone is rolling around like a goose in a soccer game refs wont give it unless there was contact, and cards given are based on the type of tackle, not the result unlike some other sports).

On topic, soccer has an advantage in that it provides the initiating point for getting important people together as it is played by everyone.

 

[vinnie]

You've got to pity the AFL followers who delude themselves that other countries give a sh_t about Aust rules.

AFL is barely able to secure Sydney (Swans games rate 5th in the TV ratings, behind SBS on sat nights!), let alone grow beyond our shores.

Regarding the hooligasm comment - do you think there is more crowd trouble at a cricket game, or an A-league game? Which has more arrests, anyone?

Also, can you name the AFL game in which a fan was murdered last year outside the Elephant Wheelbarrow following a supporter's clash after a game? Bet you don't know - it wasn't widely report and that's because the melbourne media need a kick up the arse for their pro-afl bullshit.

The fact that murders occur among AFL supprters is a scurge on our decent society. A murder has never occured in Australian soccer because fans know how to behave themselves. There's nothing wrong with flares either - I've thrown a few in my time.

 

[Ragnarok14]

To be fair though vinnie, flares probably shouldn't be thrown and the toxic nature of some means its probably not to advisable to be letting them off in crowded areas either.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Australia and Argentina have often been compared over the years due to the fact that a century ago the two nations had similar economies.

Both countries were blessed with bountiful resources, both were far away from Europe and both offered a similar standard of living. Here's an example of the scholarship on this issue:

http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/a...aldinelli_argentina/baldinelli_argentina.html

If the OP is too be believed and the act of choosing a particular sport in preference to others is important then it why is it that Argentina is distinctly second world while Australia is a first world nation?

Should we not see Argentina, having adopted soccer all those years ago, reaping the windfall economic benefits of that choice?

After all Argentina is largely a sporting monoculture with soccer dwarfing all other sports in popularity and professionalism. If the OP is to be believed then this would only serve to magnify its economic advantage over Australia.

Australia, on the other hand, has a relatively diverse sporting culture having invented one code of football and adopted 3 others from England. In addition to this cricket is a major player in the professional sports landscape. Soccer has been a relatively minor player until recently.

So if the OP is to be believed and the choice of a particular sport is somehow important for "business and our future" why is it that Argentina today is a basket case, lurching from crisis to crisis, and envied by no one in economic terms.

Australia, on the other hand, having long shut itself off from the supposed economic powerhouse of soccer, is one of the richest nations on earth and offers amongst the highest standard of living on the planet.

To try to put it down to picking a sport to ask why the countries didn't go a parallel path is crap. Germany play soccer so why aren't they a basket case? You might say the Yanks are a mono culture when it comes to the football codes they play but they aren't a basket case.

After all Argentina is largely a sporting monoculture with soccer dwarfing all other sports in popularity and professionalism.

Is that based on personal experience or because the only Argentinian stories you see in the media are about soccer. If you had very little news from the UK you would think that the UK is a sporting mono culture and is dominated by soccer. Ever read a British newspaper or watched a British sports program during soccer season. But we share a common language and get so much info from the UK that we think otherwise.

The fundamental differences between Australia and Argentina and why we succeeded and they didn't goes to the strength of the public institutions in the two nations. The courts, the parliaments, the financial and banking system, the police forces and the defence forces in Australia have never been as corrupted as Argentina. Yes we have had our share of corruption but nothing like what happened in Argentina. Argentina didn't review and renew their institutions to strengthen them like we did. If people don't believe the financial system works fairly, the legal system works fairly, the criminal justice system works fairly etc they feel they are disenfranchised, they lose, hope, they lose drive, they lose creativity etc. In the end that means less wealth, therefore less taxes to invest in public goods like education, health, infrastructure etc and therefore, less chances to get ahead and the effect is exponential rather than linear

In the end the institutions that our British ancestors handed us were stronger and we embraced them more than what the Spanish handed down to the Argentinians and how they embraced them. Society fundamentally works on trust. If the people don't trust the fundamental institutions, then decay sets in. Nothing to do with what sport your country chooses.

I would say sport, and the way it is played, is more reflective of a society than sport picking and shaping the fundamentals of a society.

So if the OP is to be believed and the choice of a particular sport is somehow important for "business and our future" why is it that Argentina today is a basket case, lurching from crisis to crisis, and envied by no one in economic terms

.

There is a differenence between being important and being fundamental. The OP is correct in that it adds to business opportunties for our future, but it's not fundamental to it. A mate who works at Austrade has recently written this article about soccer + business + culture. Looking at the date's of when the OP article was written and when my mate wrote his, I think the journo borrowed his ideas and extrapolated a little.

We're wild about Harry and the export potential of the Socceroos

 

[genghiskhan]

Wow. Its amazing how some people swallow the AFL's propoganda so completely.

More likely to be South African government propaganda than AFL propaganda. The government has been looking for a new sport for a while. First they tried gridiron but the equipment was expensive and people didn't seem to like it. They tried rugby league as well but it was probably too similar to rugby union. I am not sure how it has gone. Now they are trying Australian football because it has shown that it appeals to all body shapes, temperaments and doesn't have crowd violence of soccer. South Africa has very significant social problems stemming from sport so it is very commendable that the government is taking proactive steps to remedy them.

 

[genghiskhan]

You've got to pity the AFL followers who delude themselves that other countries give a sh_t about Aust rules.

AFL is barely able to secure Sydney (Swans games rate 5th in the TV ratings, behind SBS on sat nights!), let alone grow beyond our shores.

Regarding the hooligasm comment - do you think there is more crowd trouble at a cricket game, or an A-league game? Which has more arrests, anyone?

Also, can you name the AFL game in which a fan was murdered last year outside the Elephant Wheelbarrow following a supporter's clash after a game? Bet you don't know - it wasn't widely report and that's because the melbourne media need a kick up the arse for their pro-afl bullshit.

The fact that murders occur among AFL supprters is a scurge on our decent society. A murder has never occured in Australian soccer because fans know how to behave themselves. There's nothing wrong with flares either - I've thrown a few in my time.

Crowd troubles are AFL games involve isolated individuals. It isn't groups going on a rampage. Cricket troubles stem from alcohol consumption and the trouble depends on perspective. Ground security consider Mexican waves and booing members to be crowd trouble. Most cricket fans don't. Furthermore, it isn't violent.

Soccer is alone in the world as a sport where fans go on violent rampages as groups. It is quite clear from your posts why this is so. You are an emotional chappie, like most soccer fans. For some reason, soccer fans can't get their emotions under control. Perhaps it is because you are accustomed to feeling a sense of injustice because the referees decide the games. For example, when Australia lost to Italy, Australian soccer fans got all angry and accused Italians of cheating. Most unsavoury!

 

[Subprime]

To try to put it down to picking a sport to ask why the countries didn't go a parallel path is crap. Germany play soccer so why aren't they a basket case? You might say the Yanks are a mono culture when it comes to the football codes they play but they aren't a basket case.


Is that based on personal experience or because the only Argentinian stories you see in the media are about soccer. If you had very little news from the UK you would think that the UK is a sporting mono culture and is dominated by soccer. Ever read a British newspaper or watched a British sports program during soccer season. But we share a common language and get so much info from the UK that we think otherwise.

The fundamental differences between Australia and Argentina and why we succeeded and they didn't goes to the strength of the public institutions in the two nations. The courts, the parliaments, the financial and banking system, the police forces and the defence forces in Australia have never been as corrupted as Argentina. Yes we have had our share of corruption but nothing like what happened in Argentina. Argentina didn't review and renew their institutions to strengthen them like we did. If people don't believe the financial system works fairly, the legal system works fairly, the criminal justice system works fairly etc they feel they are disenfranchised, they lose, hope, they lose drive, they lose creativity etc. In the end that means less wealth, therefore less taxes to invest in public goods like education, health, infrastructure etc and therefore, less chances to get ahead and the effect is exponential rather than linear

In the end the institutions that our British ancestors handed us were stronger and we embraced them more than what the Spanish handed down to the Argentinians and how they embraced them. Society fundamentally works on trust. If the people don't trust the fundamental institutions, then decay sets in. Nothing to do with what sport your country chooses.

I would say sport, and the way it is played, is more reflective of a society than sport picking and shaping the fundamentals of a society.

.

There is a differenence between being important and being fundamental. The OP is correct in that it adds to business opportunties for our future, but it's not fundamental to it. A mate who works at Austrade has recently written this article about soccer + business + culture. Looking at the date's of when the OP article was written and when my mate wrote his, I think the journo borrowed his ideas and extrapolated a little.

We're wild about Harry and the export potential of the Socceroos

You seem to have misunderstood my point.

I drew on a comparison that has been made by more than one academic between Australia and Argentina and asked whether the choice of a particular sport mattered in the relative economic divergence of the two nations over the last century or so. A fair question I would have thought given that the OP proclaims that soccer is the "sport for business and our future".

If soccer was indeed important then where is the evidence for this. Choosing soccer certainly didn't help Argentina. Inventing Aussie Rules hasn't hampered Australia either. The fact is that Australia and Argentina diverged economically for a myriad of reasons but clearly the divergence can't be attributed to the choice of sport.

What will matter for our future economic prosperity is exploiting fully the comparative advantages we have as a nation, not trying to make out we are something we are not.

 

[genghiskhan]

Soccer is an easy game to play anywhere with little need for training/skill development before you can play a game, thats why its popular in poorer countries, tie some softish stuff together and you can have a game, rules are easy too.

As for poor social values, in a weekend where 26 league fans got arrested for a serious brawl at a train station leaving the match that left a few of them in hospital, it got almost no coverage as the big story was a bunch of young soccer fans throwing a bottle at a police car 'soccer holiganism'.

Another example, big story of soccer holiganism was that at a melbourne victory game people were protesting (peacefully) about not being able to stand on the upper teirs before a game, while the fact that 6 people were arrested for assault at an AFL match the following day got no coverage. Incidents at other sporting events just dont get the same nice headlines that come along with incidents at the soccer.

And finally by your logic, sports like AFL and cricket actually promote devaluation of effort as the reward for runs/points is far less than goals in soccer. I've seen plenty of AFL players playing for frees, cricketers not walking, these things happen in all sports, soccer atleast accepts this happens and is working towards fixing the problem (notice that even if someone is rolling around like a goose in a soccer game refs wont give it unless there was contact, and cards given are based on the type of tackle, not the result unlike some other sports).

On topic, soccer has an advantage in that it provides the initiating point for getting important people together as it is played by everyone.

Soccer isn't played by everyone. Nor is it watched by everyone. In fact, European crowds are about 80 per cent male because women get turned off by the violence. On the other hand, AFL crowds are about 40 per cent women. Big difference.

Even if it did bring people together, that is nothing to celebrate if it brings them together and subsequently provokes them to want to kill each other.

You keep yourself in denial about crowd problems in soccer. As a result, the crowd violence continues. Because soccer refuses to take action to fix the problem the media steps in. Fix your cultural problems and you wont e targted.

Indeed bad sportsmanship prevails in every code. The problem is that other games have high scoring so a good team should still win even if the umpire is cheating or blindly led by a cheater. Furthermore, the decisions should even themselves out in the end. The problem with soccer is that one decision leads to the only score of the match - i.e, Australia versus Italy. Then all these Australians make most unsavoury comments about Italians. Very unsavoury!

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

You seem to have misunderstood my point.

I drew on a comparison that has been made by more than one academic between Australia and Argentina and asked whether the choice of a particular sport mattered in the relative economic divergence of the two nations over the last century or so. A fair question I would have thought given that the OP proclaims that soccer is the "sport for business and our future".

If soccer was indeed important then where is the evidence for this. Choosing soccer certainly didn't help Argentina. Inventing Aussie Rules hasn't hampered Australia either. The fact is that Australia and Argentina diverged economically for a myriad of reasons but clearly the divergence can't be attributed to the choice of sport.

What will matter for our future economic prosperity is exploiting fully the comparative advantages we have as a nation, not trying to make out we are something we are not.

Fair enough, I probably did miss your point. Is sport important? Well it can't hurt. As my mate at Austrade wrote in his articles, business people meet around sport. If meeting o's business people at soccer games and talking business might give that Aussie businessman another way to exploit that comparative advantage. Austrade obviously think it's useful given that they have run Business Club Australia around sporting events.

There’s no doubt about it, sport and business do mix. We saw it at the Sydney Olympics in 2000, at Athens in 2004 and at the Commonwealth Games in Melbourne in 2006. And we expect a big wind-fall from Australia’s involvement in the Beijing Olympics in August (hands up if you also have a head of state who speaks Mandarin?). In fact, Sydney 2000 was the start of Austrade’s Business Club Australia (BCA) programme to leverage off sporting events through business networking functions. There have been over $1.7 billion of trade and investment deals created through key sporting events by the BCA, which shows the ‘power of schmooze’ works in practice as well as in theory. Many new Australian exporters – particularly small and medium enterprises (SMEs) – have got their start by being introduced to a potential business partner at a major event.

However, whilst we’ve used the Olympics, the Commonwealth Games, Horse racing, Rugby Union and Swimming to get business involved, there’s one sport that has amazing global potential for Australian exporters. It’s football – the world game.

 

[genghiskhan]

You seem to have misunderstood my point.

I drew on a comparison that has been made by more than one academic between Australia and Argentina and asked whether the choice of a particular sport mattered in the relative economic divergence of the two nations over the last century or so. A fair question I would have thought given that the OP proclaims that soccer is the "sport for business and our future".

If soccer was indeed important then where is the evidence for this. Choosing soccer certainly didn't help Argentina. Inventing Aussie Rules hasn't hampered Australia either. The fact is that Australia and Argentina diverged economically for a myriad of reasons but clearly the divergence can't be attributed to the choice of sport.

What will matter for our future economic prosperity is exploiting fully the comparative advantages we have as a nation, not trying to make out we are something we are not.

Maybe it can be attributed to choice of sport. Sport is like religion in that it conveys certain values.

 

[Subprime]

Fair enough, I probably did miss your point. Is sport important? Well it can't hurt. As my mate at Austrade wrote in his articles, business people meet around sport. If meeting o's business people at soccer games and talking business might give that Aussie businessman another way to exploit that comparative advantage. Austrade obviously think it's useful given that they have run Business Club Australia around sporting events.

Why wouldn't you take a client visiting Australia to see Aussie Rules or RU/RL?

If I went to Japan I'd want to see Sumo or a decent game of Baseball, if I went to Ireland take me to the Hurling or the Gaelic footy and if I went to Argentina then get me some tickets for a Buenos Aires derby.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Why wouldn't you take a client visiting Australia to see Aussie Rules or RU/RL?

If I went to Japan I'd want to see Sumo or a decent game of Baseball, if I went to Ireland take me to the Hurling or the Gaelic footy and if I went to Argentina then get me some tickets for a Buenos Aires derby.

Err nothing is stopping you doing that. If a client is known to you to be soccer fan and is visiting Oz, wouldn't it make sense to add on or maybe have at the top of the list a socceroos game or an A-league game?

But if an Asian Cup or World Cup is on in Japan and you do business there and you get an invite to a Business Club function run by Austrade at the game or near where a game was played wouldn't you go to network?