By Benjamin Conkey
March 12th 2009 @ 2:16am
Related coverage
Ban alcohol advertising in rugby league first
I understand Phil Gould’s suggestion that extreme measures may be necessary to ban players from drinking alcohol. But what about the copious amount of alcohol advertising and sponsorship in the game?
Surely this would need to be banned as well.
When Brett Stewart returns to league and eventually wins his first man-of-the match award, it is likely (going on previous years) that the award will be sponsored by a Rum company.
If it’s the first match of the round, he can expect Matthew Johns to slap a beer hat on his head so everyone knows who’s paying for Friday night football.
But before all that, he’ll probably go on The Footy Show the night before for an exclusive on his return to the game.
During the interview, Fatty will remind us of a certain bourbon company who are ‘great sponsors of the show’, who also happen to be a gold sponsor of the Manly club.
Nice way to forget about your drinking problems, isn’t it?
In league, there is alcohol everywhere you turn.
It’s like when Homer Simpson tried to give up beer and he had to contend with ‘Duff’ billboards littering the roadside.
Players are told they shouldn’t drink to excess, but when the game is promoted so much through drinking, can you really blame them?
If the NRL is serious about the problems associated with alcohol, they should refuse to accept advertising from these companies.
Of course they won’t.
They need the money from these sponsors. And the code depends on Joe Bloggs drinking his ten schooners at the Leagues Club and fans drinking at the games to increase revenue.
Tobacco sponsorship has been outlawed for more than a decade in Australia (apart from Formula One and MotoGP, which were in 2007). Yet despite causing considerable deaths in Australia and around the world, alcohol seems untouchable.
I know alcohol sponsorship is not just exclusive to league, but the undeniable alcohol-related problems will surely indicate to David Gallop that he needs to make a tougher stand and set a sporting precedent in regards to alcohol.
Gallop says it’s all about educating players about drinking responsibly.
However, it doesn’t really matter how much education you provide when there is peer-pressure to get ‘plastered’, especially from the experienced players.
It also doesn’t help when a club like Manly provide unlimited alcohol at their season launch.
Brett Stewart wishes it was just a punch party (punch as in the drink, not an Anthony Watmough sponsor knock-out). But instead he is facing the consequences from the worst hang-over of his life.
I don’t normally agree with Phil Gould but credit must go to him on this issue as he’s not just calling for a ban because the horse bolted with Stuart.
He called for a drinking ban way back in the 2004 Origin Series, but couldn’t reach agreement from the players and coaching staff.
If the NRL does attempt to ban alcohol, they must remove all temptations, including sponsorship.
Otherwise it’s just like shoving a cheeseburger in a Biggest Loser contestant’s face.
Get Australia's best NRL opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
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...
(19)
phil said | March 12th 2009 @ 4:34am | Report comment
Alcohol sponsorship of sport should be banned in my opinion. Not so much because of the affect it has on the adult population and players but more because the affect it has on kids that watch/play the game.
Unfortunately these kids get bombarded with images of alcohol and tend to think its ok to drink like the players do.
It also doesnt help when the Australian Rugby League team is sponsored by VB. I guess the ARL know which demographic are watching the game but its disappointing to see Alcohol sponsorship on a national jersey.
Midfielder said | March 12th 2009 @ 9:34am | Report comment
Ben
A small aside on the Central Coast there is a problem with alcohol and kids … a very bad problem. The CEO Lyall Gorman of the Mariners wrote an article about it for the local area health service some of which was published in the local press. Lyall also sits on a number of committees about kids and alcohol. Maybe just PR same may say.
But in Hal 3, a alcohol company offered the Mariners a 1.3 million dollar sponsorship and the Mariners knocked it backed saying it runs against what we are trying to do to help the community.. This news did not make headlines outside some parts of the Central Coast.. Jump forward 12 months a local RSL offer the Mariners 22 acres of their land to build there training academy, Wyond council add another 10 acres of their land that boarders the clubs land. Newcastle university in part because of a lot of work between the them offer to run there sports management school out of the Mariners academy and the Newcastle University medical faculty offer to run parts of there medical degree there as well.
My point is I think widespread community support for organisations tiring to remedy or at least help with alcohol
Kazama said | March 12th 2009 @ 11:07am | Report comment
Ben, I agree with you all the way – but as you say, there’s not much chance of a ban being enforced, especially in the current financial situation.
Alcohol is a very damaging substance if people abuse it (and many do), so its consumption shouldn’t be encouraged. Same thing with gambling; in an ideal world we could ban advertising in sports for that as well.
I guess for now it is just up to us to do our part and be responsible and hope that our kids will follow our lead and not that of the poor role models sport can present them with.
Towser said | March 12th 2009 @ 11:52am | Report comment
“Yet despite causing considerable deaths in Australia and around the world, alcohol seems untouchable.”
Whats the good of banning alcohol advertising? Its a halfway measure at best. Ban alcohol full stop. But then again Alcohol has & always will be the opiate of ther masses. Ban it & crime steps in,people get pissed behind doors in illegal clubs(as per gambling). Legalise it people get pissed in legal pubs & clubs.
This line from USA prohibition days(see below)says it all about alcohol:-
“Excess was a personal indiscretion”
That applies today as it did then & for thousands of years prior. Nothing like a “mead” orgy to set the Vikings on another night out of plundering other countries. Alcohol & young men being indiscreet when imbibing is an age old problem even the not so young pirates of the Spanish main were less than hospitable when visiting Caribbean ports.
In the working class town where I grew up in the North of England a lads night out beore the legal age of 18 was par for the course. If you couldnt sup 8 pints on the pub crawl without puking,no need to turn up next week. No different today
Its all in the culture you see of who you mix with & whats expected within the group.
When I first came here I worked manual jobs,mixed with working class Aussies. In those days in NSW/QLD many played Rugby League & it was easy for working class Poms to find a culture the same as theres in relation to drinking & lets be honest attitude(chauvanistic) to women. So I & other Poms drank with them at the places they knew Leagues clubs. Also a place to pick up “Birds” or “Sheilas”.
So historically there is a link between League & alcohol. No better or worse than the “macho drinking culture ” of Industrial South Yorkshire ,but the difference was that our drinking was not directly linked via a club to the sport we followed played.
The Pubs at the centre of town were our territory.
No matter what Rugby League does in this country the bond between the sport & alcohol is embedded in its history.
Perhaps instead of intellectualising this & trying to be so politically correct,get back to the factory floor & look for “The Bleeding Obvious”.
Towser said | March 12th 2009 @ 11:54am | Report comment
Excess was a personal indiscretion:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States
Worlds Biggest said | March 12th 2009 @ 12:25pm | Report comment
Nice in theory but it’s not going to happen, some alcohol companies are throwing sponsorship cash around because they ” can ” despite the GFC.
onside said | March 12th 2009 @ 7:11pm | Report comment
Good story Midfeilder.Its a problem all families face ,trying to bring kids up in a grog culture.
I have no answers.Banning alchohol is a paradym shift. Booze ads are aimed at supporters
not players.I drink.Sometimes too much.But I find alchohol ads offensive.Well perhaps that is
not quite right, maybe I find them belittling.Test cricket; Australia -Victoria Bitter play South
Africa- Castle . Its not just Rugby League.It is though a very serious problem.Alchohol is a
legal drug that causes more damage to society than all other illicit drugs combined.( no I am
not an authority but I have read about it so many times over the years ). The government
could not afford to support an alchohol ban in Rugby League.10 GST for starters and then
billions of dollars of excise tax.Governments then handback a little,to build sporting facilities
for a healthy nation.What I have written is waffle,in as much as nothing will change ,Australia
is a grog culture.Blame the rum rebellion.Thats it,the problem with alchohol in Rugby League
is directly linked to the bloody poms and the rum rebellion.Its better in rugby union because
even pink Australian polar bears flog rum.We’re a weird lot.
Billo said | March 12th 2009 @ 8:20pm | Report comment
I live in London these days, and in this country the major rugby competition is called ‘The Guinness Premiership’, and there are, admittedly, numerous incidents of rugby players getting involved in violent incidents where alcohol plays an important part.
Soccer has the Carling Cup, which promotes beer.
On the other hand, the rugby league authorities over here have move right away from alcohol sponsorship.
Their major competition (Super League) is sponsored by an insurance company, the Challenge Cup is sponsored by a university (Leeds Carnegie), their semi-professional comp is sponsored by a retailer (The Co-operative) that promotes a ‘green’ image. Their TV broadcasts are sponsored by Irn Bru, a soft drink that comes out of Scotland.
Maybe the English Rugby League has a lot it can teach the NRL, and other sports, in diversifying away from sponsors who promote undesirable products.
brettym said | March 12th 2009 @ 8:33pm | Report comment
I can;t believe so many people live life in a bubble. What evidence is there that banning advertising automatically reduces alcohol consumption? The banning of cigarette advertising sure had the desired effect! Not. Has anyone been in a schoolyard at recess lately?
I say get as much money out of the companies as possible to keep sporting competitions like the NRL going and promoting active lifestyles to get kids away from the computer games. If alcohol advertising is causing so much trouble one shudders what these violent games are doing to young minds.
If everyone rushes out and buys something they see advertised, then why hasn’t anyone bought the bridge I have for sale?
dasilva said | March 12th 2009 @ 9:27pm | Report comment
Brettym
http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/phe/sdua04/sdua04.pdf
“The proportion of the Australian population aged 14 years and over who were daily smokers dropped from 24% in 1991 to 17% in 2004. The proportion of the population who were ex-smokers increased during this time, from 21% in 1991 to 26% in 1998, and remained stable in 2001 and 2004. The proportion of the population who had never smoked more than 100 cigarettes in their life also increased, from just under half (49%) in 1991, to just over half (53%) in 2004.
In 1991, over one-quarter (27%) of Australian males aged 14 years and over were daily smokers, but in 2004, less than one-fifth were daily smokers (19%). The proportion of males reporting that they had never smoked more than 100 cigarettes in their life increased from 42% in 1991 to 48% in 2004.
The proportion of females in the population aged 14 years who smoked daily or occasionally remained lower than males. In 1991, 22% of females aged 14 years and over reported smoking daily, compared with 16% in 2004. The proportion of females aged 14 years and over who had never smoked more than 100 cigarettes in their life increased from 56% in 1991 to 58% in 2004.”
Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act 1992 expressly prohibited almost all forms of Tobacco advertising in Australia.
The stats showed that the banning of cigarette advertising (a long with other educational campaign) work.
It’s not perfect, it doesn’t get rid of everyone who smoke cigarettes. I know many people back at school who smoked tobacco (amongst many other things) but to say it has ZERO impact or is not effective is absolutely rubbish. Isn’t it possible that what we see in the school yard today as bad as it is was worst 15-20 years ago?
I’m pretty open to limiting alcohol advertisement as well if it’s possible to have the same impact in reducing the amount of alcohol abuse.
Benjamin Conkey said | March 12th 2009 @ 11:04pm | Report comment
Brettym, advertising and sponsorship are subtle things. We as humans think that they have no influence on our lives – that we are strong enough to resist, but it’s the subliminal level that is the problem. When you constantly see alcoholic logos it subconciously gets imprinted.
All the fast food outlets use the colour red because it makes us feel hungry.
And in regards to tabacco..in Formula One ferrari is still sponsored by Marlboro, but the majority of races have no tabcco advertising. So what does Marlboro do? They cunningly came up with a paint strip that looks the same as the logo without actually saying the ‘M’ word.
If Tabacco advertising had no effect why would Marlboro go to such an effort to find a way around the rules?
I didn’t watch all of the Footy Show tonight, (so correct me if I’m wrong) but from what I saw Jim Beam was nowhere in sight. Was this Jim Beam pulling the plug or channel nine realising it was a bad look when they criticise the players for drinking?
Billo, thanks for letting us know about Super League. If what you say is true, then SL is one of the only football comps in the world that isn’t sponsored by alcohol.
Kazama said | March 13th 2009 @ 8:03am | Report comment
brettym, I have been playing video games that you would say are violent and a bad influence most of my life yet I haven’t ever felt the urge to become a mercenary, a drug lord, a mafia boss or any other of the personalities I’ve assumed through the medium.
I also watch tons of ultra-violent R-rated movies, I read a lot of explicit novels and listen to some very heavy music, but I guarantee you I wouldn’t hurt a fly. I don’t drink, smoke or do drugs either, and I am not unfit despite not playing competitive sport regularly.
I can guarantee you that the kids that beat the crap out of me every week for five years of high school weren’t influenced by playing video games – they were too busy drinking, doing drugs and playing footy to have any interest in video games.
Perhaps the fact that I had video games may have kept me from going out and getting stoned, drunk or committing crimes like other kids looking for ways to relieve their boredom.
Not that I expect my comments to stop people from scapegoating video games as the reason for all of the world’s ills.
benicio said | March 13th 2009 @ 3:59pm | Report comment
Shall we ban gambling sponsorship because we may push people towards problem gambling? Should we prevent the Brisbane Lions from being sponsored by Four n Twenty, as this may lead to childhood obesity? Or Collongwood from being sponsored by McDonalds for the same reason? Or are premium car companies and high cost airline sponsorships encouraging people to spend more than they should on transport during this time of economic uncertainty? Where does it end?
Let me ask a simple question – who makes a decision to consume these products? The individual.
That is what all of these issues come back to. A decision by an individual to consume a product. As advertisers, sure, you want to be putting the purchasing decision into the consumers head. That is what advertising is all about, but that is where it ends, you simply give the consumers an idea. It is then up to the individual where they take it.
The balance of power is well and truly with the individual – let’s not forget that.
debjohno said | March 13th 2009 @ 5:08pm | Report comment
Hey Brettym, I don’t live in a bubble, I work in a school, and unfortunately you are right. I’m not sure where the surveys are done for the statistics, but cigarette use is infinitely more prevalent then when I went to school 20 years ago. So do we then ban parents from smoking in front of their children. Then when we ban alcohol sponsorship why not go the whole step to communism and ban parents from consuming it in front of their children.
The end result is, no matter how hard we try, you can’t put brains in monuments!.
Geordie Doherty said | March 20th 2009 @ 4:39pm | Report comment
They took out of sport the sponsorship of sport by tobacco companys, who replaced the tobacco companys?
Alcohol companys. Its all good to discuss the funding of sport by alcohol companys but is taxing people the way to to replace the funds that sport losses. Should we think of the options before discussing a tax. In the current climate the money provided to sport is subjective. Sport needs to be funded. Develop a structure that doesn’t rely on alcohol sponsorship before discussing bans.
Red Cap said | February 15th 2010 @ 11:42am | Report comment
This article is a typical Roar effort.
Biased and one eyed.
Apparently only rugby league benefits from alcohol advertising in the world of sport.
My God… LOL.
Beast-A-Tron said | February 15th 2010 @ 11:56am | Report comment
Piss poor cop out. I grew up with plenty of alcohol advertising plastered through sports and it didn’t affect me.
People need to take personal responsibility for their actions, their kids actions (if applicable) and stop this disgusting moralising wowserism driven blame game. The government is NOT YOUR NANNY.
I’m getting bloody sick of this encroaching paternalistic government, individualism needs to be reinforced not collective responsibility. Saddling society with unnecessary law and regulation is only a polite form of tyranny.
Responsibility begins at home, with parenting, not with government interference in our culture.
Edit: Geez Red Cap I just noticed this article is almost a year old what gives?
Crosscoder said | February 15th 2010 @ 12:16pm | Report comment
Let me begin by saying I enjoy a drop of the amber liquid.I could and perhaps would enjoy living in a world without alcohol.Banning alcohol advertsiing in rl,when it is used and advertised in other sports,. in addition to those not involved have had issues with alcohol.,is blaming one segment only of the community.
Gould may well be correct with the approach,because rl has had real problems with the issue last year..But alcohol advtg in rl,is hardly encouraging parents who send the kids to schoolies week with slabs of beer.And they are not thinking of rl,when the sweet strong stuff is dispensed.Maybe Brendan Fevola is really a rugby league player.
Ban it by all means ,if it is the answer,and while we are at it,ban the V8 and Formula ! car races.Speed is encouraged on the race track with powerful cars.How many car accidents and deaths have we also had on the public roads as a result of speed.I accept at times it is speed and alcohol.Yet we see alcohol advvtg signs at car racing events.
If you think youth don’t ape the speed boys on the track,or the thrill of speed,then I am not here.
I find also the duplicty of govts,when they are upset at the effects of smoking,but have no qulams in keeping it legal,and raking in the tax dollars.
How about parents taking some control at times,(and I include myself in that category)or are they too deeply engrossed in their careers and getting the biggest house in the street,to notice the kids need some guidance.
Geordie said | February 15th 2010 @ 1:02pm | Report comment
You ban alcohol sponsorship of sport where does the money come from instead. Sport will suffer,people will say we did alright when tobacco sponsors left sport, and yes we are better off. But at the time the government set aside funds to lessen the impact of the withdrawal of the tobacco industry, do you think today’s government would do the same thing.
For the governement to help out sport they would have to apply a tax on all Australian’s.People don’t like taxes, it also doesn’t mean the money would go directly to the affected sports.
So you take away alcohol sponsorship of sport,think about who will fund sport next. Gambling providers will replace alcohol and the same debat will enrupted.
As other’s have said, ad’s don’t make you drink,people drink because they want to. The see there parents drink, there brother’s and sister’s drink these people have more influence then alcohol companies.