21st century football wars: and the winner is …

By Spiro Zavos
February 28th 2008 @ 6:58am

The announcement by the AFL that it is going to invade the western suburbs of Sydney, the heartland of rugby league, has reignited the always simmering football wars.

The period between the 1880s and the end of the First World War in 1918 could be described as ‘the era of the football wars’ in Australia.

This initial series of conflicts for the hearts, minds and bodies of Australian males was a contest to become the national winter sport. The first battles were between what has become known as Australian Rules and rugby union.

In 1883, Australian Rules (then known as Victorian Football) moved outside Victoria and seeds of the game were planted in Brisbane. A year earlier, however, VFL authorities had rejected a plea to subsidise VFL players living in Brisbane to come down to Sydney to play VFL football against a team of Sydneysiders. A game of rugby union was played instead, with a number of the Queenslanders needing to have the laws of rugby explained to them.

The venture was so successful a return match in Brisbane was arranged, and this was the start of the NSW-Queensland rivalry - the Blues against the Reds - which has has lasted through to Super 14 rugby. It is one of the longest state (or provincial) rugby rivalries in the history of the code.

Touring has always been an essential part of the rugby ethic. Dr Arnold at Rugby School, where the game was created in the 1840s, used to go to Europe at the end of every school term. This touring ethic was picked up by rugby players, even in Australia. In 1882, following their tour to Brisbane, the NSW players embarked on the first rugby tour of New Zealand by an overseas team. A year or so later, an Auckland team toured NSW.

The touring ethic of rugby became so entrenched in NZ and Australia that in 1904 a team from the famous Maori College, Te Aute, came to Sydney. The Te Aute style of vigorous, skillful, fast and expansive play was picked up by St Joseph’s College, Hunters Hill, after their match against the unbeaten New Zealanders.

While rugby was entrenching itself in NSW and Queensland, the VFL was trying to convince rugby authorities in New Zealand, Australia and in the UK that the IRB should convert from rugby to what they insisted was the more skillful ‘Victorian science’ game. For a time the VFL started to call its game, ‘Australasian Football.’ But when the overtures to New Zealand were rejected, even in flat Christchurch where the Victorian game was quite popular, the VFL began to call its game ‘Australian Rules football.’

In a fascinating article in the SMH, the sports historian Sean Fagan points out that an Australian Rules 11-club competition was established in Sydney in 1903. One of the backers of the competition was the great cricketer Victor Trumper. The competition was kicked off by a match between Fitzroy and Collingwood. The crowd at the SCG was 26,000. A few weeks later Australia played New Zealand for the first time at the SCG in front of 30,000 people.

Sean Fagan argues that Australian Rules gained a significant hold in Sydney by 1905 with as many youngsters playing the Victorian game as there were playing rugby. Two of Dally Messenger’s younger brothers were Australian Rules players, and, according to Fagan, Dally Messenger himself played for Easts in 1905.

Sydney, and with it NSW and Queensland, was saved for the rugby code (but rugby league rather than rugby union), according to Fagan, by ‘the advent of professional rugby league.’ Because league was professional, it generated the cash to pay footballers, who might otherwise have defected to Australian Rules. League entrenched its popularity as the dominant football code in NSW and Queensland during the First World War when rugby union shut down its grade competitions. The Queensland Rugby Union actually went out of existence until 1929.

By 1919 the football wars had reached a stalemate. NSW and Queensland were predominantly rugby league states, with rugby union having a significant hold with the middle and upper middle classes, a passion generated in the main because rugby union was the football code of choice since the 1890s of the GPS colleges.

There was what sports historians called a Barassi Line protecting the rest of Australia, Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania, for Australian Rules.

This Barassi Line, with Australian Rules ruling to the south and west and the rugby codes ruling along the eastern seaboard, was as static as the line of trenches across Europe in the First World War up to the 1980s.

The 1980s onwards saw breakthroughs in the football wars on both sides of the Barassi Line. The AFL established the Swans in Sydney and the Lions in Brisbane. The NRL established teams (unsuccessfully) in Perth and Adelaide, and successfully in Melbourne with the Storm. Rugby union became a professional sport in 1996. Super Rugby was set up and rugby tests were played in front of huge crowds at the spiritual home of Australian Rules, the MCG.

Huge televisions receipts, from free-to-air television (for AFL and rugby league) and from Pay TV (for rugby union and football with its A-League) commercialised the sports, and gave them the revenue to promote their codes in what had hitherto been enemy territory.

Now flush with money and with the ambitions of world domination retained from the 1880s, the AFL has launched a major offensive into the western suburbs of Sydney, the heartland of rugby league. The AFL has announced that it wants to have a second Sydney side, playing out of the western suburbs, as soon as possible.

This decision by the AFL has restarted the football wars in earnest. The rugby league establishment has enjoined the battle. We’ve had Sean Fagan’s historical article in the SMH insisting ‘hold hard, fellow rugby-ites (of either brand) and footballers of the round-ball kind, we’ve heard all this hot air before.’

Roy Masters, the great writer on rugby league, and a former coach of the famous St George club, is adamant that AFL is desperate to break into ‘larger media markets’ in Australia and around the world but that ‘west Sydney may prove the Rubicon the AFL will never cross.’

In Melbourne, the biggest-selling daily newspaper in Australia, the Herald-Sun, is gung-ho in its support of the AFL invasion of the hostile territory of west Sydney. But in Sydney, the Daily Telegraph (also a News Ltd newspaper), the voice of rugby league (its advertisement for an assistant sports editor specifically mentioned a knowledge of rugby league as a requirement) has taken up the fight for its code.

This is the context to the opening paragraph of a report of a Swans-Port Adelaide trial match: ‘The AFL’s plan to take over western Sydney by 2012 received a healthy reality check after a small crowd turned up to the Swans’ pre-season game … at the same time across town, the pre-season match between the Roosters and the West Tigers at the SFS attracted a crowd of 15,197.’ Ouch!

The football wars in Australia have been going on for about 120 years. It’s impossible to predict when they might end. I think it’s fair to argue, though, that it is most unlikely that any one code will wipe out all the other codes. My guess is that in time (but don’t ask me when) football/soccer will displace AFL as Australia’s major national football code.

Football already has a national coverage: it has huge numbers of players; it has a national league that has the potential to grow much bigger; it has a huge market in Asia that its clubs and national side, the Socceroos, can play into; it has the Football World Cup tournament and the Olympics to energise the local game every two years.

Rugby union also, although a much smaller level in Australia and around the world, is getting the same national reach, together with its vibrant international footprint. The Investec Super 14 is attractive to an up-market finance/investment company because it is played in Australia, South Africa and New Zealand, and watched with great interest in the UK. Rugby’s World Cup tournament, held every four years, is the biggest sporting event in the year it is held.

The two other combatants in the football wars, the AFL and NRL, have deeply entrenched positions within their heartlands. But no amount of posturing, especially by the AFL, can disguise the fact that their international presence is relatively small.

If football in world terms is Coca-Cola, then rugby union is Pepsi Cola. Using the same analogy, AFL and NRL are Bundaberg ginger beer, a terrific local brand but with limited overseas appeal. If this analogy is correct, the winner of the Australian 21st century football wars will be …

Recently popular

Free Email updates:

Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...

The man said | February 28th 2008 @ 5:27am | Report comment

Spiro,

Nothing I like better winding down after a title fight than a nice cold can of Shelley’s ginger beer.

The fact that can may be distributed to less, but more descerning countries (or states) doesn’t change my enjoyment. It still tastes bloody good to me.

The rest of the world (like WA) just needs to try it, or have Russell Crowe shove a can down their throats.

All this talk about cans has me thinking about breaking my self imposed pre fight absenance.

Peace out brother

sheek said | February 28th 2008 @ 9:08am | Report comment

Terrific article. As were those by Sean Fagan & Roy Masters in the SMH. Several years ago, 2 books came out within a month or two of each other.

The first was by Sean Fagan, titled ‘The Rugby Rebellion’, which is a fascinating & deeply researched book on how rugby league broke away from rugby union around 1907-09.

The second was by John Mulford, titled ‘Guardians Of the Game’, which is another deeply researched & well written history of NSW rugby.

However, I felt that while Fagan was able to back his stories/theories constantly with hard facts, Mulford, former ARU archives librarian, was inclined to be too political, towing the tired, old mantras of rugby union’s superior place in the sun over rugby league.

Anyway, well done Spiro. I myself have no idea where this will all end, except this - for any code to believe they “own” a particular territory will be their first fatal mistake. This is a “fluid” war of the football codes!

Millster said | February 28th 2008 @ 9:55am | Report comment

Spiro - with an article like that you should be renamed “the Toreador”. I am waiting with baited breath for the inevitable riposte from Michael C and the other AFL-ites who frequent this site!

My one short comment is that it strikes me as silly that the competition between the 4 codes assumes the same optimum outcome of outright market dominance. A war is only a war if you are trying to conquer the same battleground, and that doesn’t necessarily have to be the only way that the cross-code rivalry plays out. I don’t think it’s a bad position at all to be a niche / foil to major global brands. Plenty of success has been achieved by carving out an idiosyncratic little corner of the market. AFL and League should celebrate being fantastic, enjoyable ‘little’ games that add their own flavour to the culture of Australia. In keeping, my own passion is football and that’s what I predominantly attend. But when overseas family or friends come and visit, it’s off to the AFL that we go.

sheek said | February 28th 2008 @ 10:04am | Report comment

Millster,

There was a time not so long ago, late 90s, when I resented the fact there were 4 football codes in Australia.

But I saw the light - I can appreciate all 4 codes. I think they can all prosper, but they all have to work hard on their markets. The beneficiaries (hopefully) will be us fans.

Our mantra ought to be: “entertain us, or we’ll go elsewhere”. Sorry, there’s that ‘E’ word being applied to sport, again……….

Midfielder said | February 28th 2008 @ 10:04am | Report comment

Millster

Maybe MC reply may be to much for the server with this much open for discussion.

My simple comment is enjoy your sport as it is not a war and those that declare normally get hurt to, unless total victory which cannot see happening.

The war that will be interesting but we will not see will be between the old hard heads in sports media departments, coming up against the accountants to justify the inches they currently provide the AFL & NRL

Steve said | February 28th 2008 @ 11:46am | Report comment

Spiro,
Well done with the article. It must be extermely difficult to summarise the long and complex origins of the 4 games in NSW and QLD in the limited column space.
I can add that in 1877 and probably earlier, the Waratah Football Club in Redfern,Sydney and other clubs, played both rugby and what they called, the Victorian Rules(of rugby) . I call it Vic Rules for short,( the precursor of the AFL). It wasnt the same Waratah organisation as we know today, just a club with the same name.
The Waratahs actually preferred Vic rules and invited the Carlton Football Club from Melb to play 2 games in Sydney, at the now built over Albert ground in Redfern. Apparently, this was the first time a Melbourne club had played in Sydney.
The first match was played on Sat 23/6/1877 under rugby rules and was won by the Waratahs 2 goals to nil. The second match was played on Monday 25/6/1877 under Vic rules and was won by Carlton 6 goals to nil. Both matches were played before the Governor of NSW and other dignitaries.
In later years, key members of the Waratahs went on to form the fledgling “NSW Football Association” , ie Vic rules in NSW.
By the way, at the time all 3 winter sports used the term “football” in their name or organisation or in newspaper reports, which can make it difficult to research.
As a rugby man, I was disappointed to discover that my great grandfather was actively involved in the setting up of Vic rules in NSW but I have nonthe less, researched this subject at length.
It seems that Vic Rules was much more popular in Sydney than rugby or Association Football(soccer) in the late 1870s and mid 1880’s judging by the amount of column space devoted to it in the SMH and other Sydney papers of the time.
On another point, the situation with the Queensland Rugby Union after WW1 is controversial.
When war was declared in 1914, the NSWRU and the QRU both quickly shut down the game to allow all able bodied men to freely enlist to fight for King and country.
The NSW and Queensland rugby leagues did not do the same. They played on during the war enjoying a virtual monopoly and with their players safely protected from the Kaiser. In fact the NSWRL was so concerned that their players might be forced to serve in the army if the conscription referendum was passed that they met with the Aust Govt to apply for an exemption.
After the war, rugby resumed in NSW. But in Qld, the Queensland Rugby League had taken over all the ground leases of the QRU depriving rugby of anywhere to play.

Cheers

Westy said | February 28th 2008 @ 12:29pm | Report comment

Always said the Leaguies had more brains.

Chas said | February 28th 2008 @ 12:33pm | Report comment

Steve:

You write absolute unresearched rubbish when you refer to RL and World War !. Read Sean Fagen’s books and articles to extend your knowledge. Spiro, unfortunately, has used a similar stance to yours on many ANZAC Day occasions to denigrate RL. This has been corrected by many other informed writers. However, the myth prevails…….thanks to your uninformed appraisal.

Michael C said | February 28th 2008 @ 12:42pm | Report comment

Nah, I won’t overdo on this one.

I agree re. the niche thing.

I do point out though that the Melb Herald Sun HAS NOT in fact been fully supporting the AFL. The Melb Herald Sun has effectivey been promoting the anti-expansion, anti-Sydney sentiment. (being a News Ltd outlet - one wonders as to the outright independance of it’s positioning). And the notion of a wide front full scale ‘war’…….that’s simply the Sydney NRL media trying to build a bit of interest amongst their own folk - it allows them to do so without using ’soccer’ (the real major threat) as the public enemy number 1. It’s opportunistic - it’s smart. Wait and see on the pay off - there’s certainly a big push to increase club memberships on the back of the centenary - IMO there’s a bit of NRL credibility riding on this year. At any rate, I’ve noted the Sydney media haven’t really picked up on the comments of Denis Fitzgerald (who I rate), who, reckons, it’s not really a big deal. There’s already a fair grass roots AFL presence, and, given that the AFL have a national draft, it isn’t required to rape and pillage the local suburbs of talent and outbid rival codes for individual kids (well, not for a whole squad - because, all sports are doing just that all the time any way, signing up 12 year olds…..)

Niche - I think I’ve pretty well pointed out that I see the AFL as never having more than a reasonable niche in NSW & QLD. The AFL has never sought total warfare (I’m talking the current institution, I don’t care for the thoughts of one particular fellow quoted by Fagan from 1880). Certain individuals such as Ron Barassi may state their vision, or dream or whatever - but, have never been recognised as reflecting official policiy or position. Who knows.

I still believe that the phoney war at the moment is the uneasy tension existing between the 2 rugby codes, and the uneasy tension between Rugby League and Soccer. They’re are the more likely to explode - they are the Pakistan/India powder kegs - simply, because they all share NSW and QLD as their largest footprint power bases. The relative core strength increase for any one does by virtue weaken at least one of the other.

btw - is it perhaps ironic to suggest that the greatest impetus for the formation of Rugby League in Sydney was in fact the ’smell the fear’ of the piddling Victorian game. Or, was it what was happening in New Zealand and England - ah well, either way, Aust Footy played a role to help Sydney folk get their act together.

Steve said | February 28th 2008 @ 1:16pm | Report comment

Chas,
Oops! I seem to have touched a sore point!
As I said in my piece I have researched the early years at length. In fact I’ve been doing it for about 10 years now on and off. Its one of my hobbies. How many source documents have you studied Chas?
I have waded through Fagans books of course.
Fagan is a self professed and passionate advocate of League. He’s entitled to his opinion but just because hes passionate about Rugby League and their non-show in World War 1 doesnt make him right. He has desperately tried to put a positive spin on it. Other researchers have different and at times opposite points of view.
I know Rugby League gets touchy about this subject every time it pops up. Some of my own family were in both camps on this very issue.
I think we should agree to disagree on this issue.

Michael C said | February 28th 2008 @ 1:27pm | Report comment

Given that in Melbourne the VFL continued during WW1, and in WW2 simply shortened the seasons of 1942 and 1943 - - I might suggest that the done thing at the time was that the pro leagues continued.

I have no family history in Australia let alone the Commonwealth dating back to either war so I have no vested interest to say ‘big deal’ or ‘cowards, how dare they’ - all I can say is that I’d never stand almost 100 years hence and judge those at the time……..however, perhaps if somebody said ’sorry’…..

Is it not in general the approach that you try not to shut down the home front entirely, the ‘big league’ was good for morale etc etc. However, if that outcome was only reached at the lobbying of both parties (and any others in that boat). Again, as above, I wouldn’t judge them in retrospect knowing the outcomes.

The Boar said | February 28th 2008 @ 1:41pm | Report comment

Steve - perhaps you would care to tell us which other professional sports around the planet (outside of war zones) ceased thier competitions in WW1? The VFL didn’t stop in WW1.

By all means we can all have contrary views, but in your original post & in Spiros article we only got - as sheek so well put it - “the tired, old mantras of rugby union’s superior place in the sun over rugby league.”

Steve said | February 28th 2008 @ 2:19pm | Report comment

Michael C
You seem to be trying to put words in my mouth. I didnt use terms that you have attributed to me like…”big deal’ or ‘cowards, how dare they’ ”
My intention from the outset was to recite a simple fact - not to be judgemental. It seems that some people cant handle the truth.

The Boar
As I said to Michael C, I have set out to present a fact not to be judgemental. I didnt realise facts could be so controversial.

Chas said | February 28th 2008 @ 2:34pm | Report comment

Why should we agree to disagree about an issue that has truth attached to it? Sean Fagen is not the only writer/researcher to have reported something different to Rugby Union spin. Like you, I am an interested hobbyist in relation to this topic and have been convinced by impartial writers on this subject. To dismiss Sean Fagen as a Rugby League apologist is to continue the myth started by Rugby Union followers during the 1920s. Sean Fagen is NOT a Rugby League follower. He is an acknowledged impartial leader in his field. To state otherwise is to continue the myth.

Michael C said | February 28th 2008 @ 2:35pm | Report comment

Steve -

NO, no —– I wasn’t trying to put words in your mouth, I was more musing about the 2 extreme positions that might be taken on passing judgement - were I to do so (let alone anything in between). I was trying to make clear why any comments I make on this issue are totally NON-JUDGEMENTAL and the reason why.

I have no position re your position or that of Chas - and, just as Rugby folk may have never had any idea that VFL was running through the wars - I have never cared either way or known about what Rugby was doing all that time ago and had no idea that there might be a perhaps murky story behind such.

I also support that you clarified that it wasn’t just 1903 that saw Victorian/Melb/Australian Football establishing a ‘beach head’. It had already done that to a lesser degree, it was more the question of the likelihood of being a professional organisation going forward. And Sydney was in a far greater state of flux in all such respects than Melbourne - as below illustrates:

“A point to remember is that, at least until the 1890s, football in Melbourne was on a much bigger scale than in Sydney. In 1881 Melbourne’s population was 282,000 and Sydney’s was 225,000, but the disparity in the popularity of football was much greater. According to Twopenny, Melbourne had eight times as many clubs as Sydney, the biggest crowds were three times the size of Sydney’s best, and about ten times as many people watched football in Melbourne as in Sydney on any given Saturday. Moreover, the sixpence charged at Melbourne grounds had helped to create a chain of well-appointed suburban grounds while in Sydney, with one exception, matches were played on unenclosed grounds such as Moore Park and the Domain, and disruptions to play were common as spectators spilled on to playing areas.”

cheers.

The Boar said | February 28th 2008 @ 2:40pm | Report comment

“Steve - “I didnt realise facts could be so controversial.” Because (in regard to WW1) all you did was offer up your opinion of those events. You can call Fagan’s piece on WW1 opinion too, but at least he backs up what he says with reasoning: http://www.rl1908.com/articles/war.htm

Steve said | February 28th 2008 @ 2:54pm | Report comment

Gentelmen , gentlemen, gentelmen,
Some people seem to be confusing, facts,opinions and judgments.
Its a fact that, with some exceptions on both sides, rugby men enlisted in WW1 while league men did not, in Sydney. Can we all agree on that?
Secondly, the Queensland situation after WW1 is very well documented. Or is that fact in dispute as well?
I’m not making judgements - merely presenting facts.
Chas,
I’m shocked that you disown Fagan as a Rugby League man despite his numerous books and websites devoted to his beloved game. Who acknowledges his alleged impartiality?… the NRL? Maybe the home of rugby.
league, the Daily Telegraph?

sheek said | February 28th 2008 @ 3:04pm | Report comment

Steve et al,

Firstly, Sean Fagan. I have a lot of faith in him because he has spent countless hours trawling old newspapers of the day for his info. Newspapers are next to primary sources, primary being face to face. The rest of us are happy to read someone’s opinion/research from a book, often 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 10th hand, which might/might not be factually accurate.

Also, I don’t think Fagan is biased towards league. It is obviously his first love, but he’s willing to shoot down any of the codes fiddling with the truth. And he’s researched more thoroughly than most.

This stuff about about rugby union players going off to war & rugby league players remaining behind has got to stop! Let’s not start re-writing history. Most of the young men who went off to war thought it was a jaunt. It was only later, too late for some of them, that the horror of war dawned on them.

But at the beginning, many of them thought it would be a lark. It had nothing to do with King, country, duty, patriotism or whatever. There’s was also a very anti-British feeling in Australia. Some of it Irish catholic based, but also anti-empire based .

I don’t know the full story of Queensland rugby union/league. But I do know, from reading Ian Diehm’s book, “Red, Red, Red: The Story Of Queensland Rugby’, that rugby union owed a great deal of its revival to a spat (civil war) between the QRL & BRL in the late 1920s, if I remember correctly.

So union can think league for that!!!

Spiro Zavos said | February 28th 2008 @ 5:30pm | Report comment

I want to clear up a matter that has been raised against me in The Roar from time to time about the issue of the rugby league code and its attitude to conscription in the First World War. The context for my article in the SMH was an Anzac Day RL test match between Australia and NZ. The advertising for the match showed Australian players in the old Anzac uniforms confronting NZ players in the old Anzac military uniforms.
I wrote a piece in the SMH pointing out that this advertising was false to history in that NZers and Australians actually fought on the same side at Gallipoli. They did not attack each other as the advertising implied.
I also pointed out that it was also unbecoming of the RL authorities, and unhistorical, to try to appropriate Anzac Day for the RL code. My reason for arguing this was officials of the RL throughout the First World War did their utmost to ensure that few RL players volunteered to serve overseas, while 90 per dent of first grade rugby union players served overseas. RL players were encouraged to serve a local conscription which allowed them to play in the RL grade competitions.
The media person for ARL wrote a bitter letter to the SMH accusing me of denigrating the RL players who served overseas and sometimes died overseas. The SMH published this letter, despite the fact that it quoted me inaccurately, as an article.
I replied to this article/letter, making the point once again that it was inappropriate for the ARL to try to appropriate Anzac Day for the RL code. I think that Roy Masters some time later endorsed this opinion.
From time to time on The Roar some writers have brought up the ARL attack on me as if it were the truth. I hope that this clarification ends this. Once more, for the record, my article made the point that the RL authorities continued playing their grade competitions. They encouraged their players not to volunteer. That this position was widely condemned at the time by the chauvinstic The Bulletin. And that it was wrong historically to dress up players in the old uniforms to promote the Anzac Day RL test.
My personal view is that the RL authorities were right to continue their grade competitions. The rugby union authorities were carried away with ultra-British jingoism with their decision to close down their men’s competitions, and to encourage rugby players to volunteer.
My understanding, too, is that opposition to the British motives in the First World War was behind the decision of most of the Christian Brothers schools in the western suburbs of Sydney to change from rugby union to rugby league. The Christian Brothers were mainly of Irish origin and they did not identify with a war that they believed (with some justification) involved aspects of British imperialism. This was especially the case after the terrible retribution of the Black and Tans in Dublin and the countryside after the Easter Rebellion.

sheek said | February 28th 2008 @ 6:00pm | Report comment

To clarify, none of my post above was directed at you. We have previously crossed swords on this matter, & following the same story you gave to me that is relayed above, I have been totally cool about how you approached that particular SMH article you refer to.

Unfortunately, there are visitors to The Roar who remain ignorant of the events of WW1, especially those who have an axe to grind with one football code or another.

Joe FC said | February 28th 2008 @ 6:15pm | Report comment

Spiro
A very thoughtful article & even better clarification. I think you might be right on soccer eventually supplanting AFL as Australia’s major national football code but I strongly doubt any of us will be around to see it. Beauty as they say is in the eye of the beholder. We all choose to watch & follow whatever our heart’s desire.

John Ryan said | February 28th 2008 @ 7:07pm | Report comment

Interesting piece Spiro,cant see how you totaly avoided the Super League mess which split Rugby League in two and from which it is only now recovering,to Steve, seeing as how we are not happy about some Rugby League players not racing off in the First World War when the conscription issue split the nation,look up Mannix some time.
I will raise the FRU and their collaboration with Vichy and the NAZIs during WW2, and the outright theft of the assets of the FRL,and the non return of such assets to the FRL,which do you think is worse playing football in a society split by class and religious dislike (Catholic Vs Prods)or a group that profited from cooperation with a govt who had a hand in mass murder,as did the FRU,every one can bring up the past

Redb said | February 28th 2008 @ 7:44pm | Report comment

Let’s be clear. Any reference to an article or research by Roy Masters or Sean Fagan has to be taken with a grain of salt. They are biased Sydney based journos blatantly propping up their own code to the detriment of footy - Aussie Rules.

I love my footy, enjoy union and soccer, and watch the SOO with RL. RL is a media owned entity and in particular the Melb Storm are a propped up shell for expat kiwis. I miss the days of the Balmain Tigers with Siro!

Soccer will grow, but I think one of the rugby codes is more at risk than footy - but then again I’m biased. Passion for AFl is far greater than any other code in OZ - a much harder nut to crack than some people think.

cheers
Redb

JimC said | February 28th 2008 @ 8:06pm | Report comment

Redb - So RL gets a real fair go in the Melbourne press?

Anyway I’m not as bullish on Soccer as the rest of you. I think there will be a natural tendency for the clubs to overextend themselves seeking success - especially given the wage competition from outside Australia. It’s still early days for the A-league.

The most important thing for any sport is to keep its feet on the ground. Rugby league’s recovery from the Super League debacle is largely because of a well policed salary cap and this is one of the sport’s big advantages over RU and A-League right now.

A salary cap keeps the clubs solvent, and means the players have a bit more in common with the fans - It’s a lot easier to support a team through a bad patch when you know many of the players are on $60000 per year than when they are overpaid pre-madonnas. If that means a few of the more grasping ones head off to another country or even another sport then so be it. Rome was not built in a day.

sheek said | February 28th 2008 @ 8:22pm | Report comment

Oh boy, some of you guys are out of contro here.

In case you missed it, you’re all in a no-win situation.

Something along the lines of, “let he who has not sinned cast the first stone”………………..

Neither rugby union, nor rugby league, nor Soccer, nor AFL, nor any sport, can claim purity.

Westy said | February 28th 2008 @ 8:58pm | Report comment

Redb…. Again your passion is to be respected but I hope you have actually read Sean Fagan “s work. You might not like his conclusions but his work is wll researched. Remember two conscription referenda were defeated by by more than a few disgruntled catholics. This catholic population represented about 21% of the population and still formed about 19% of total enlistments. Your wholesale demeaning of his work is unnecessary.YOU see as someone who does try in Western Sydney for both rugby codes the historical classist and elitist attitude of the Australian Rugby towards working class people, indigenous Australians and migrants was and is appalling and is one of the greatest indictments on those who run the game. IT was downright nasty. For this they have no comeback. Rugby continues to put scarce resources/ promotion into schools with multi million dollar fitneess centres largely recently funded by the taxpayer, scrummaging machines, Physiotherapists, specialist coaches. You can tell I have seen it in action Oh ST joseph’s give indigenous scholarships but only to those who excel in sport..Give me a break “sport of choice ” for GPS schools. They did not wish to mix or play the Plebs. This is one of the real achievements of Aussie rules its rejoice in all classes playing against each other.

Chris said | February 28th 2008 @ 9:26pm | Report comment

God imagine that the Aussie Rules,Rugby Union,Rugby League and Gaelic Footballs all played the same game,then we be a big rival to Soccer.

Michael C said | February 28th 2008 @ 10:05pm | Report comment

Good to see you Redb,

As a non Rugby person, the economic rationalist in me would say that the 2 Rugby codes MUST merge. End of story.
I was not aware of the depth of animosity so illustrated herein.
All I can say is - build a bridge. Get over it. WWI is a long, long time ago. It starts sounding like one of those Euro enmities stretching back before the crusades.

Sean Fagan in my experience is reasonably read. He and I have drossed paths and have both covered Geoffrey Blaineys work - and again, I’d recommend anyone to “A game of our own”. Fagan chooses a more strict interpretation that the AFL is unjust in celebrating 150 years of what was virtually a game of rugby in 1858, whereas I take a different perspective such that with no evidence of what rules THAT series of games employed, and with the diverse backgrounds of many of the participants and organisers - it is fairest to believe that ’scratch’ rules were agreed to on the day. That that day more than any started the ball rolling on the development of the rules - and that the ‘pool’ of written rules was in fact so shallow that it would be largely impossible for any set of written rules - by comparison - to not at least have 4 or 5 ‘(relatively) common laws’. So - on that point, I can clearly state that Fagan takes a Rugby persons bias on his view - and it perhaps suits him to believe that the AFL are trying to ’spoil’ the NRL party. Although, I think he over anticipates the regard that any of the AFL states would have for the NRL party - given that only one pseudo club exists in all over them. And given only 2 AFL clubs exist in the NSW-QLD NRL heartland, well, I don’t think any AFL celebration will make enough noise to drown out the NRL neighbours and their raucus partying.
So - is Fagan completely untouched by a level of pro-League bias. I’d believe that he can’t avoid it - but then I can be accused likewise the other way. And perhaps, the thruth lies somewhere in the middle - - which, is generally the case - because simpletons make conclusions based on single perspective views………which could lead to a discussion about Murali, cricket and umpires calling no-balls with the naked eye……but, not today.

Westy -
one of the real ‘achievements’, YES, and we could perhaps congratulate ourselves - - - but, the quirk of historical timing that effectively ensured that Melbourne went down the path they did is probably more responsible than any ’superior design’. And that quirk, or little historical window….sometimes I wonder just how wide open it was. Was it only a 3 or 4 year window? If I was a serious historian I’d love to do a thesis on that. Because it also relates to the ability of Victoria to influence other states, and, in certain respects, only the spoiling role played by the very English gents of old Sydney town and their ability to cut Queensland off from Victoria has ensured that the modern balance is as is. Ah, but for love of King and Empire. (or Queen).

Redb said | February 28th 2008 @ 10:11pm | Report comment

JimC, put this way, when your owned by News Ltd - Herald Sun in Melbourne you get a lot more fluff pieces that you deserve. Rugby league gets the press it deserves for a game that gets ave crowds of 12,000 in a sports mad city. The AFL would pull 150,000 to 250,000 week in week out- now you tell me which sport you could cover in Melbourne.

Westy,, i’ve read several of Sean Fagan’s articles and they are biased towards rugby league. He may research but his conclusions and use of stats is geared in one direction. If your a rugby league supporter from Sydney his articles would support your views.

Westy said | February 28th 2008 @ 11:02pm | Report comment

Redb….despite being a Sydney boy I have lived in and enjoyed life in Melbourne . I enjoyed Melbourne crowd support, The best in Australia. However some sports journalists there were on the whole more narrow minded and shallow in their knowledge of sport in Australia than in Sydney. For example cricket , even at a state and district level gets much better coverage in Sydney than in Melbourne in my experience over a 2 year period. I cannot but think this reflects the lack of success of Victorians in australian cricket . This is not a snide remark but a real problem. Lucky Shane did not play for ST,Kilda. But no one talks about this in Melbourne press. In Sydney there would be article after article. This does reflect a problem. During a cricket test InVictoria the VIC/TASsy commentators seem to be concerned with cross promoting AFL or discussing its issues. It probably also reflects there are no Victorians in our team. A fact that I find sad. That the 2nd most populous state cannot produce a current test player. Being catholic in my sporting taste Sydney offers a greater range of good quality sport.to attend. The cultures are however quite different. Melbournians go to the game . In Sydney it depends what else is on. The beach even in winter plays a powerful role in my city. Sydney on the whole does not really care what happens in Melbourne. Melbourne often seems more concerned.

The Answer said | February 28th 2008 @ 11:39pm | Report comment

Michael C,

I’m glad you prefaced your comments “as a non-rugby person” because it means your following line doesn’t need to be taken seriously.

You state that “the economic rationalist in me would say that the 2 Rugby codes MUST merge. End of story.”

I ‘m perplexed as to what theory of economics you subscribe to. If you are a true economic rationalist, would that mean that all sports need to merge so there is just one? The most economical number. Or do you think think that maybe just league and union should merge because “as a nonrugby person” you think they look the same.

Rugby people might disagree.

Why MUST they merge and importantly how would it work?

Does the new sport have 13 or 15 players? Or do we call it even at 14?

Lineouts in or out? Six tackles or unlimited? One point field goals?

Rugby League fans like quick play the balls, but plenty of Union fans like the way the ruck and maul work. So how does play that out?

Then once you have got your rules worked out. The economic rationalist in you might want to answer the next few questions.

Rugby League is growing as is Rugby Union, if that is the case, why would they want to merge. Their supporters obviously like the various brand of what they are watching so why would you need to dramatically change it. What guarantees are there that they would like the Michael C inspired Union/League lite?

Also, as an economic rationalist you aren’t taking a very global view, seeing you are an AFL fan that is forgivable.

Your view occurs only because you live in the Australian market and doesn’t take into account that the league and union playing countries outside Australia don’t face the same problems (hence the problem creating any sort of standard economic model, the key for an ecomonic rationalist, but you’d know that, being one).

Are you proposing that once you have come up with your mergered rules you will jet over to South Africa and say “hey chaps, look we’ve decided to completely change the rules of rugby because it will get the league fans hooked in Aus, so if you could make the following 873 changes to the way you play the game you love that would be ace.”

Then repeat the process at every other country that players either or both sport.

The economic rationalist in you might decide there are better ways to spend your time.

But, don’t worry I forgive you after all you are a “non-rugby man”, if nothing else…….

chris said | February 29th 2008 @ 12:10am | Report comment

If think you can not have 2 pro Rugby codes now but it will take both sets of officals and fans to forget about the past and look to the future.I wish the AFL boys and GAA Footballers where part of a Rugby set-up but that thought is in cuckoo land.
I think the problem in merging the 2 codes will be Rugby Union as they make out they don’t want change and are happy with the present rules(in which England play 10 man Rugby).I feel that the Rugby Union bodies of Australia,Tonga,Fiji,New Zealand,France,Western Samoa,Wales and even Ireland wouldn’t mind something a bit different.

Michael C said | February 29th 2008 @ 6:21am | Report comment

The Answer -

exactly - not entirely serious.

BUT - to the Americans in the CBA ads (’watch us stand”, “game designed before the elbow was invented”) - they would conclude that RUgby Union and League are effectively one and the same game - the nuances are too minor (and players have for years and years swapped from one to the other). Therefore, it is a major financial inefficiency to try to sustain both at all levels ….. as the ARU found out with the ARC.

Obviously however, the US folk in this scenario (the CBA ad) would probably just decide it’s all pretty similar to Grid Iron, that you’d be better off with more pads and helmets - and that the Rugby game is still too similar to what Teddy Roosevelt threatened to ban 102 years ago that actually forced the US Rugby variant to remove a lot of the formation plays that probably lead to the notion of the game played in heaven - cos it sent more people there than any other. I cringe everytime I hear that ‘description’ - not something I’d brag about - but I assume there’s a different reason originally.

But - certainly - the reality is that people like your good self - in the tradition of a Union rule book full of “Don’ts” can only see why you can’t do something (merge the 2 codes)…….
Look - I realise it would be a simple process as Chris points out, there probably would be a fair few countries with no major issue about doing it - and for whom it might be far and away the best outcome for ongoing sustainability (the little countries….the little ones)
And true - I realise entirely that my view is based on living in Australia where the Rugby codes are engaged in open warfare in a wider environment of open football warfare. However, globally, I would suggest there would still be many locations where it would be beneficial for the combined entity to move forward.

Westy -

these days the reason that the exploits of Vic cricket is given the coverage it ought to is that so much ‘news service’ is derived from Sydney - where by the exploits of NSW origin cricketers, golfers, bands, murders are seemingly given a ‘national significance’ rating. It is frustrating and drives people away from certain outlets as reliable sources.

And thankyou very much, NSW folk, who sent out that time bomb Mark Waugh to get Matt Elliott - he never got back after that ‘accident’ - stitched up good and proper he was
There was even a NSW push that MacGill was a better spinner than Warne…..as if. But, even there, the NSW cricket/media mafia was gunning to kick a Vic.
they succeeded with Lawry, Wiener, Higgs, Yallop, Bright, Jones, and Hodge. Siddons never got a look in. Only big Merv and Maxie Walker - who proove that Vics have to resort to playing the clown role……

chris said | February 29th 2008 @ 9:23am | Report comment

The English RFU (Rugby F**k Up)are the ones who but both Union and League on the divided line that it sadly still is today.
I can never work out why the New Zealand,Welsh and France Rugby Union never went to Northern Union rules as they where working class.

Michael C said | February 29th 2008 @ 9:44am | Report comment

btw - JimC -
I agree with Redb, in the News Ltd press especially, the Storm gets a very fair share of coverage :
given, the level of support (attendance, membership)
given, the level of Victorian involvement in the competition - zero or next to zero players, Storm populated entirely by NSW & QLD players, feeder team located in Toowoomba??, RL in Melb is really limited to about 4 clubs with any decent structure - the rest if you check the websites you’ll see club names and logos for clubs that don’t actually exist.

Soccer gets great coverage, certainly Fairfax (Age) are right on side with MVFC. The EPL however will often have greater coverage than the HAL - recognition that more people care about the Gunners, Utd, Ciddy, Spurs than they do about Perth GLory or Wellington Phoenix.

RU - get’s the coverage it warrants - stuff all.

okay, winter temperature is more moderate in Sydney. However, Melb has an entire Bay around which many suburbs are built. It’s a family freindly non ocean beach environment……okay, yeah, water temp and air temp about 6 degrees lower half the time…….

….the Sydney attitude to MElb used to be that we would watch anything in great numbers - the Melb Cup, the footy, the cricket….and when a whole heap turned up for the SoO game back in the mid-90s, NRL thought they were on a winner. However, people don’t JUST GO ‘COS THERE’S NOTHING ELSE ON. THe Storm have discovered that. In the old days that may have been more true . . . . but, certainly since these wretched massive shopping centres have spread like a plague, try to get a car park Sat morning after 10am……….apparently there’s ’specials’ on……and Muffin Break coffee and Wendys donuts………sheesh, to think of that happening in the city of Chapel St and Lygon St and Fitzroy St and Brunswick St……I feel shamed……..

Redb said | February 29th 2008 @ 1:56pm | Report comment

Westy,

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Melbourne has moved well beyond its Sydney envy of the 1980’s. Its time Sydney folk woke up to that. Melbourne has moved beyond Sydney is many other ways as well.

I like Sydney, enjoy the Harbour, the ferries and the pubs.

Michael C said | February 29th 2008 @ 2:40pm | Report comment

Redb and Westy -

when Melbourne remembered it was a water front city on by the bay - that helped.

when Melbourne stitched up Adelaide and scored the F1 GP - which gives Melb international recognition that money can’t buy - - -well, except that money is buying it……but, you know what I mean!!!

and when Melb had a decent alcohol plan laid out that resulted in a decent ‘bar’ scene in the CBD, alas, the fellow who put that together is currently lamenting some of the high volume nightclubs that are focussed purely on bad alcohol consumption………nothings perfect…hopefully they’ll fix that up.

Likewise, I love a getaway in Sydney, and, I must admit that recent tunnels and tollways (if one is being paid by the boss) makes Sydney that much easier to navigate. That’s one thing Melb have done first, made gooder roads! Now we just need to pay some love and attention to our PT network.

Midfielder said | March 1st 2008 @ 1:32am | Report comment

Redb,

Melbourne IMO must be the worlds greatest sport watching city, which you should be proud of.

I think what Westy was trying to say was in Sydney we don’t care about going to a sporting event as much as the people in Melbourne.

My reason apart from other things to do as Westy put it are, travel around Sydney is a nightmare both road and public transport, Very few sporting grounds are well located or have great parking. Also rugby generally and league especially is almost a good on the telly as it is to watch live. So why get in the nightmare traffic when I can watch it. AFL on the other hand is much better live.

But going to sporting events in Sydney is not the norm, whereas from afar it would appear in Melbourne it is the norm

Redb said | March 1st 2008 @ 2:34am | Report comment

Midfielder,

I agree its certainly easier in Melbourne to go the MCG or telstra dome to watch sport.

Midfielder said | March 1st 2008 @ 11:44am | Report comment

Very good read by Richard in the smh today, he takes no sides but belives the World Cup bid has been the match that lit the fuse.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/sport/forces-gather-for-battle-to-win-the-west/2008/02/29/1204226993073.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

Forces gather for battle to win the west

March 1, 2008

HINDSIGHT

IN CASE you spend more time with your nose in the sports section than The Monthly or Quadrant, the so-called culture wars are over. The Cultural Elite Soyaccinos came from behind to beat Balmain Riesling Right with Kevin Rudd’s buzzer-beating apology.

But just because we have reached general consensus on things such as reconciliation (good), global warming (not good) and industrial policies that reduce workers’ salaries and conditions (also not good), it is not peace in our time.

Stand by for an even bloodier battle in which entrenched prejudices, distorted versions of history and appeals to the best and worst instincts of Australians will again be common. And this time, instead of skirmishing over an asparagus ravioli with a drizzle of truffle oil, you’ll be lucky to get a decent pie and chips.

Goodbye culture wars, hello footy wars. And we don’t mean the innocuous shadow-boxing in which the four competing codes have engaged over the past two decades, where they would apologetically plonk a franchise in rival territory, hand out freebies to impressionable kiddies like missionaries distributing bibles to illiterate tribesmen, or compete in intellectually bankrupt Aerial Ping-Pongers versus No Necks versus Wogballers debates.

With the Australian Football League stating its intention to accelerate its move into western Sydney and the Gold Coast, and Football Federation Australia enlisting government support for a World Cup bid while expanding the A-League, the Cold War-style division of territory is about to be replaced by hand-to-hand combat.

As the strategic moves in the war rooms of the AFL and FFA escalate tensions, revealing has been the slightly panicked reaction of rugby league diehards at the prospect of the AFL - and, inevitably, the A-League - marshalling forces on the western front.

The Herald’s Roy Masters, one of the few experts intimately acquainted with the machinations of both the NRL and AFL, described the AFL push into western Sydney as “misplaced imperialism” - a sentiment that seemed somewhat unusual given he was, at the time, on assignment with the Melbourne Storm.

Meanwhile, a throwaway line by that sabre-rattling AFL nationalist Ron Barassi that Sydney could one day host four teams prompted predictable Churchillian cant from league dial-a-quotes about how the west would never buckle under the AFL’s blitzkrieg. “We’ll fight them in the bleachers.” That sort of thing.

But, despite those stirring words, you detect some frayed nerves among league supporters. Not because of the strength of the AFL’s multimillion-dollar push, but because they fear their own forces are not yet up for the fight.

The NRL’s hesitancy in expanding its borders and the feudal nature of some traditional heartland clubs - highlighted by the Bulldogs’ recent in-fighting - could make the game more vulnerable than some of its sword carriers would like to believe.

The response of NRL supporters and media propagandists - if not the NRL executive - to a potential invasion of the west is a heavy reliance on stubborn, Soviet-style resistance from a large, fanatical band of hard-core westies.

But while they prepare for the Siege of Parramatta, the invaders are already jumping the trenches and infiltrating the population.

Meanwhile, the AFL has moved on to war footing because the game that grandiosely appropriates the title “football” has made a pact with the Federal Government to bid for the 2018 World Cup.

Until recently Hans Blix would have found only a bunch of unpaid invoices for the relative firecracker that is the A-League in the FFA bunker. But, in Rudd’s patronage, the FFA now possesses a potential weapon of mass persuasion. A chance to sidle up to the Government and, while they are at it, slip a hand in the pocket and grab the funds needed to compete in an escalating arms race.

At the same time, the FFA maintains the handy facade of neutrality.

With the summer A-League not competing head to head with other codes and the World Cup impervious to criticism as a matter of “national interest”, it can pretend to be Switzerland as it secretly masses its forces.

The first casualty of war seems to be the Australian Rugby Union which, after recent cuts in government funding, has been left looking as impotent as the Japanese post-disarmament. It does not help that, in a nuclear age, its former generals were still fighting the Boer War. (Or, judging by some Super 14 games, the Bore War.)

Even for a death-or-glory general such as Stormin’ John O’Neill, it could already be a matter of damage limitation as everyone goes over the top.

Michael C said | March 3rd 2008 @ 5:10pm | Report comment

Midfielder -

It’s a more subdued response than some of the outright NRL friendly propaganda eminating from other Sydney based news journos.

Roy Masters - may be ideally positioned to be more aware of the AFL - however, he’s still a NRL apologist who can’t see the forest for the trees on certain issues (as most of us are regarding our relative preferred codes - fair enough, - main point though, is he has self interest in pushing the NRL wagon).

The references to the FFA/soccer/HAL seem balanced - although, you’d almost expect a chorus of soccer knocking accusations.

His recognition that the ARU are on almost deaths door is hardly ground shattering.

His references to the NRL re the soviet style ‘defence’, that’s interesting. I’m glad that’s recognised and in print.

TO me, it will be one of those things people will look back on and say “Hang on, what were we worried about the AFL for? It was sokkah that actually had mobilised forces NOT all along our frontier - but, WITHIN.”

At the end of the day, Rudd and ‘football’ - interesting proposition.

ON a couple of fronts - I await to see just where he stands.
Certainly on a soccer front, it’s one thing to commit $30-40 million to a bid - should that fail, then what?

Midfielder said | March 3rd 2008 @ 6:05pm | Report comment

You have picked up on most points but he is a Melbourne based jurno and his first sport is AFL, in other lifetimes and in prior years he was one who put the boot into football.

One of his points I found interesting was his belief that a bloodbath was about to begin and only AFL & Football were ready for it, not sure if he is right but his analysis of union is interesting as you said.

His words not mind that the bid process will make the Socceroos only good news stories for that national good is worth a through as well.

Keeping it brief he raised a lot of questions, but that a war has begun as he said is interesting.

Dave said | March 3rd 2008 @ 6:57pm | Report comment

the first soccer club to go under will be the Perth Glory

Midfielder said | March 3rd 2008 @ 7:09pm | Report comment

You could be right, players are leaving in droves ,or maybe a new more astute buyer will come along as the Gloery Boys have a proud history and just need the right mix to get the crowds back but from what i have seen so far its like rats leaving a sninking ship

John Ryan said | March 3rd 2008 @ 8:12pm | Report comment

I have never read such a load of rubbish as Michael C take that Roy Masters is a Rugby League apologist,if hes an apologist what does that make P Smith and Caroline Wilson, the jokes that appear on Outsiders and say they give all sport a fair go and then chat and boost AFL at any given time,then we have the crew on The back Page, it quite often turns in an we love AFL show as well.
People can criticize the NRL, the Sydney press jumps all over Rugby League at any given chance, ie The Telecrap,the SMH would prefer to cover RU and fervently hope RL will go away,the man who wrote the article Hinds is also and AFL man so he would not be biased would he.
Kindly dont give us the one about the NRL and NEWs please, as far as I know the AFL is the only sporting group to have the media sign an agreement allowing no unfavourable comment,but then most AFL people seem to live in a bubble where the Media self censors its self and only other codes players and officials do the wrong thing.
Here in Perth were I live say something bad about the AFL never,the Cousins thing only broke because he was a total FW,otherwise it would have been covered up as was Careys past, which now is leaking out but it wont last,the AFL will lean on there usual tame journalists and editors and Poof it will be no more.
I read about 3 papers, read widely on the net, watch sports shows on Pay and there has never been a more molly codled sport than AFL
You also get AFL shoved down your throat through all media outlets constantly and you are not allowed to criticize it in any way shape or form I know I have tried, and some how Micheal C I cant for the life of me see Melbourne being any different,you had a dig at the Storm about players, after 20 odd years how many Sydney born players are in the Swans, 18, 20, 30 I think not, what kinda Miracle do you expect the Storm to perform in about half that time.

9supprise supprise allowing no critical press with

Westy said | March 3rd 2008 @ 10:09pm | Report comment

Michael C… Always interested in reading your comments but to narrow in on Roy Masters is to ignore the vitriol of Patrick Smith against other codes. Roy at least acknowledges his bias but does appreciates some of the skills of AFL. Caroline Wilson is much more biased with no knowledge of other sports , even Patrick knows something about tennis. Sheehan is totally dismissive of football yet people who love skill like Sheedy or Bennet although with obvious bias still very much appreciate the skills of the other codes and can talk positively about them. . Roy has had a good word about the AFL. game. I have read them. You should understand his article was a reaction to a very arrogant, all over the place emotive unAFL like interview by the AFL Chairman which the AFL CEO and operations manager to their credit soon had to clarify. His comments were clearly aimed at the Commission. Bluntly Caroline knows very little of the other codes and has never said anything positive about her appreciation of their skills.This makes her the most narrow major sporting journalist in Australia and one that has little credibility outside AFL. She knows nothing else.

Westy said | March 3rd 2008 @ 10:33pm | Report comment

Michael C ….I know you know but it is difficult to get this message across to the AFL heartland but Sydney SWans have very very few Sydney juniors of which only one is competent regular . One day this may change but 26 years is a long time. Please name Sydney’s Voss, Aka manis, Riewalt.?The Swans have been here for 26 years. Their recruitment of quality elite athletes in a city of over 4 million has been abysmal and has tended to reflect their middle class recruitment push. They are seriously pursuing their existing Irish connection. Good supporter base but skewed to wrong demographic areas with low birth rates. Remember there was an existing Sydney Aussie Rules comp before the Swans. This makes it even worse.You are quite correct the recruitment of elite quality athletes in Queensland has been much more successful.

Midfielder said | March 3rd 2008 @ 10:38pm | Report comment

Just adding Les Murry spin from SBS …..interesting and worth comment, Les at least when its not the A-League can be postive about football.

Australia’s bid to host the 2018 FIFA World Cup will be an unprecedented test case for the undeclared, so called ‘war of the codes’ in this country.

For the first time in the history of football’s long struggle to gain a foothold as a relevant sport in Australian society, football actually needs the help and co-operation of its so-called rival codes to take a giant step forward.

The country’s two most powerful winter sports competitions, the AFL and the NRL would either have to interrupt their campaigns for perhaps two months in mid-season or undergo massive dislocation by losing their biggest and most popular venues.

The World Cup finals will run from the second week in June to the second week in July. Add another two weeks at either end for venue preparation, reparation, various contingencies and the like and the venues are likely to be required for the FIFA event for eight weeks.

With venues like the MCG, Telstra Dome, ANZ Stadium, the SFS and Suncorp Stadium poised as World Cup stadia, the AFL and NRL competitions will either have to go into a two-month mid-season sabbatical or transfer their games to more modest, suburban grounds.

The former is more likely than the latter, but in either case the World Cup organising hosts, the FFA, will rely on the generous co-operation of two large, powerful but increasingly insecure sports living in fear of football’s rampaging progress.

Given the might of the World Cup’s appeal in Australia, as shown by the way the country was galvanised by the 2006 event, and what a home-hosted World Cup would do to advance the esteem of football, such co-operation from the two giants, to give football a leg up, is just about unthinkable.

But should it be? Do Aussie rules and rugby league have so much to fear from football that they should go so devilishly against the national interest and refuse co-operation?

In my view, no.

The war between football and the other ‘codes’ has always been a phoney one and remains that more than ever today.

Football presents no threat to AFL and the NRL and never has, at least not to their traditional popularity and place. There’s no better evidence for this than what has gone on in the past three years.

In that period the A-League’s attendances have grown at a healthy pace. But ironically so have the crowds of AFL and the NRL. Similar can be said of television audiences. In other words football, for all its growth in appeal, is not eating into the markets of Aussie rules and rugby league.

As Frank Lowy, football’s chief, told SBS recently: “We don’t want to threaten anybody. We just want to be successful in our own right.”

Which is perfectly possible if it is conceded that there need not be a turf war. There is enough turf for everybody, even in a country with 21 million people.

The most likely quarter from which a stumbling block will be put before the World Cup bid is the AFL. This is the body which, accordin

By Spiro Zavos
February 28th 2008 @ 6:58am