By Steven Gibbs -
October 15th 2009 @ 5:07am
Get a Roar profile
Loading ...Related coverage
Don’t AFL realise that Western Sydney is not a place?
Administrators of the AFL need to rethink the relationship between place identity and demographic markets when expanding their competition in coming years.
Unfortunately, on the evidence of the proposed Western Sydney franchise, administrators are conflating the two, creating an entity based largely on a market demographic which no actual identity to which fans can attach their allegiances.
From an economic perspective, a new team in Australia’s most populous city seems like a smart decision. Furthermore, locating the team in western Sydney makes intuitive sense, as this is where a large percentage of Sydney’s population lives.
Unfortunately, Western Sydney is not a place. It does not exist. It is a figment of the imagination of a marketing executive working somewhere in the AFL commerce section, using statistical data to calculate emerging populations in key demographic areas.
It is a manifestation of the economic imperative that dominates decisions-makers and administrators running our leading football codes. Unless these administrators understand the difference between a demographic market and place-based identity, the new Western Sydney football club will not flourish.
Take the fundamental flaw in the naming of this new team: Western Sydney.
Imagine you are an AFL fan living in Blacktown, devoted to the game you love. In Blacktown, you already have a local team to follow, the Sydney Swans, because Blacktown is, believe it or not, part of Sydney.
Calling the new team Western Sydney implies that somehow the Sydney Swans’ identity does not include the western suburbs of Sydney. Are western Sydney’s Swans fans expected to support the new team when it launches in the new competition?
If the Western Sydney team does enter the competition, will the Sydney Swans be rebranded the Eastern Sydney Swans?
Locating head office and training facilities in Blacktown and playing games out of Homebush might make sense to a marketeer who sees western Sydney as a homogenous lump but to others familiar with Sydney’s geography, these places are worlds apart.
From Blacktown’s perspective, Homebush is positively beachfront.
It’s either fraudulent or misguided to suggest that a team based at Homebush would represent AFL fans who live in places like Blacktown.
I can see how it might seem possible on paper but in reality there’s no related identity.
I can also see the marketing logic in using the name Western Sydney. To an administrator trained in economics and business management, they convince themselves that an identity can be created around a demographic market.
Unfortunately, people in western Sydney, in my experience anyway, don’t think of themselves in their day-to-day place-making activities at belonging to an entity called Western Sydney.
The place they call home tends to go by more localised names, such as the suburb name or the nearest centre (such as Blacktown, Parramatta or Penrith; western Sydney is full of mini-cities).
The AFL needs to latch onto an actual identity that relates to the people of western Sydney rather than attempting to impose one from above.
To this end, I dare the AFL to name their team after an actual place in western Sydney such as Blacktown or Parramatta. At least Parramatta is close to Homebush, which is located on the Parramatta River.
Experience from existing teams in both the NRL and AFL shows that although places are important in maintaining an identity, fan-bases are not always wholly located within the location of the team’s base.
Every AFL team has fans located throughout the country. An AFL team called Blacktown or Parramatta would provide a base for the team’s operations and a place-based identity that would appeal to people in the western Sydney demographic, even if they don’t strictly live in those places.
If I can use language the administrators will understand, simply calling a team Western Sydney creates a placeless entity that will result in your key demographic failing to make a connection to the new team. Despite your intuitive feeling to the contrary, this will limit future financial returns for the AFL’s 18th team.
Your Western Sydney franchise will not survive unless you recognise the importance of place in fans’ engagement with your sport. I’m sorry to tell you this, but Western Sydney is not a place.
You just made it up.
Get Australia's best AFL 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...
(97)
tifosi said | October 15th 2009 @ 5:19am | Report comment
All the research that new a-league club Sydney Rovers did indicated that having West/Western in the name would be a serious mistake.
The AFL should use this knowledge.
Freud of Football said | October 15th 2009 @ 4:48pm | Report comment
Stop believing that there was a whole lot of research done. Rovers is a plaything, the name was chosen not on the basis of what the fans in the area might like but on the whim of what the new owners want.
Pippinu said | October 15th 2009 @ 6:56am | Report comment
Interesting perspective, and it’s true that the Rovers have shunned the name West Sydney (much to the chagrin of many soccer fans I might add).
Blacktown was the catalyst for the whole idea, and I wouldn’t mind that being pursued as a naming option.
In fact, an all black guernsey would be unique.
Also, the nick name “All Blacks” has a nice ring to it.
I wonder if such a nick name has ever been used?
hazey.the.bear said | October 15th 2009 @ 7:09am | Report comment
But Pip,
What would they wear as an “away” strip?!?
DT said | October 15th 2009 @ 8:08am | Report comment
Easy – black strip with vertical white stripes. Can’t see that causing any problems.
Pippinu said | October 15th 2009 @ 8:16am | Report comment
Chris said | October 15th 2009 @ 8:27am | Report comment
Only a matter of time before the PC mob get up in arms over the words “All Blacks”…
Pippinu said | October 15th 2009 @ 7:11am | Report comment
White shorts?
Redb said | October 15th 2009 @ 7:31am | Report comment
Good article. There is much truth in what you are saying.
”Greater Western Sydney’ is not any better.
As Tifosi suggests take note of the 2nd Sydney A League team’s research which to me makes sense, maybe call the new AFL team the Sydney Rams as opposed to Western Sydney Rams.
The origins of the team and where it markets itself will to attract fans will become obvious over time, I’d imagine they’re not going to run ‘Sydney Rams’ programs on the North Shore for example.
Take note AFL admin.
Redb
Pippinu said | October 15th 2009 @ 7:36am | Report comment
Add to that that there are already two AFL teams with West/Western before their names – so it probably is opportune to think about something else.
However, does the AFL want another team just called “Sydney”?
Redb said | October 15th 2009 @ 7:46am | Report comment
why not, Sydney is a proven bandwagon town probably widen their appeal rather than narrow it.
The Swans have already lost their bandwagon fans from 2005-2007 anyway, finished well out of the 8 and still averaged 28,000 to games. They have a niche and when they re-build on the field will go well again.
Call it Sydney…….. market to Western Sydney and greater NSW. Leave the coast to the Swans.
Can’t be all things to all people anyway.
Redb
Dogs Of War said | October 15th 2009 @ 7:48am | Report comment
Does Sydney want another AFL team is probably a better question.
Redb said | October 15th 2009 @ 7:53am | Report comment
They wont know until they get one.
Did Melbourne want a rugby league team in 1998?
Does Melbourne want a second A League team next year?
Did Sydney want the Swans in 1981?
They wont know until they get one.
Redb
M1tch said | October 28th 2009 @ 11:23am | Report comment
except for the 2nd aleague team (which will fail)
all codes are ‘allowed’ to have 1 team in expansion areas..
afl was in their rights to goto sydhey, league same with storm
but seriously their is not much to justify a west sydney afl team..same if NRL went to melb again
Pippinu said | October 28th 2009 @ 11:26am | Report comment
Mitch
in 20 years time, the NRL might do that.
If we believe Oikee – the NRL might even do it within a few years!!
AndyRoo said | October 15th 2009 @ 9:57am | Report comment
How can RedB with zero market research and dollars spent get it right but the AFL make such a blunder.
Makes me wonder what other mistakes are in their research…perhaps they will be playing in hot pink and fluro orange because that’s what their market research suggests ‘we want something different that we can wear riding our bikes at night”.
Sydney Rams would be a perfect name. I think people in the Hills District or the Blue Mountains would like the name and it wouldn’t be the turn off “west” sydney is.
Calling it by a suburban name doesn’t sound right either, the name Blacktown has worst stigma than West Sydney in my mind. I know it’s had a bit of a property boom since I last went their but I wouldn’t suggest naming the Gold Coast team Labrador either.
That said it is just a name.
Redb said | October 15th 2009 @ 10:07am | Report comment
To be honest, I think the 2nd Sydney A League team is what twigged the answer for me, maybe it will do the same for the AFL.
up until then I was scratching my head as to how the AFL would market the team for the generic Western Sydney.
Redb
Pippinu said | October 15th 2009 @ 10:14am | Report comment
What about a Sydney Rovers super-football club: playing in the A-League, AFL and Super rugby (for the 6th Aust Franchise).
Product differentiation? No worries, piece of piss:
We can have the:
Sydney Rovers (A-League gets first dibs at it)
Sydney Ruck Rovers
Sydney Rolling Mauls
JimC said | October 16th 2009 @ 1:01am | Report comment
Based on the efforts of current ARU players it would be Sydney Dropping Balls rather than Sydney Rolling Mauls
Brett McKay said | October 15th 2009 @ 11:21am | Report comment
Redb, I’m sure the ARU owns West/Western Sydney Rams as a brand anyway, it was the old ARC team…
Great article by the way Steven, a lot of very good points…
Redb said | October 15th 2009 @ 12:19pm | Report comment
Brett,
I know that it was the ARC team name for WS, does it still hold the name/copyright?
Not a big deal, if they go Sydney Rams anyway I suppose.
Redb
Pippinu said | October 15th 2009 @ 12:21pm | Report comment
There has been a combined NSW/ACT U18 team called the Rams since the mid 90s.
Brett McKay said | October 15th 2009 @ 12:32pm | Report comment
Redb, i assume they do, but say that with no evidence to back it up. When Brett Papworth emerged as the head of a consortium for a WS S15 side (before the ARU eventually decided Melbourne would be Australia’s preferred option), he and they referred to their team as the Western Sydney Rams, and claimed “a known brand” as a positive.
I’d be surprised if the ARU let any of the rights to the ARC names go, although if anyone wanted East Coast Aces, I reckon they’d be welcome to it…
Redb said | October 15th 2009 @ 12:46pm | Report comment
Sounds about right.
Michael C said | October 15th 2009 @ 12:51pm | Report comment
how about a variation on “West Sydney Rams” and
go for the “West Sydney Studs”…..
Chris said | October 15th 2009 @ 1:05pm | Report comment
Ballymore Tornadoes anyone?
Chris said | October 15th 2009 @ 8:25am | Report comment
There are limitless examples of two teams having the same place name. NY Jets/NY Giants, Yankees/Mets, Manchester United/City. I can easily see the Sydney Swans and Sydney Rams/Celtics/Whatever they will be called being able to both go under the name “Sydney”.
Pippinu said | October 15th 2009 @ 8:40am | Report comment
Good point.
Although I know in the NRL two (or even three) teams experimented with a name change to just Sydney – but I’m not sure if it worked out for them.
Chris said | October 15th 2009 @ 11:22am | Report comment
They all had a history in the individual suburbs in the first place. Obviously having Sydney Tigers, Sydney Bulldogs and Sydney Roosters (were there any others) in the one competition was crazy when all three already had a large fan base under their traditional names. I wish the Roosters would either change their name to “Easts” or move to a different city!
Brett McKay said | October 15th 2009 @ 11:27am | Report comment
Pip, you’re thinking of the mid-90’s and the ARL comp (at the time, prior to the NRL), and you had Sydney City, North Sydney, South Sydney, Sydney (Tigers) and Sydney (Bulldogs).
Interestingly enough, the two Sydneys are now Wests Tigers and (about to be) Canterbury Bulldogs again. Sometimes broader branding means nothing. North Sydney of course either does or doesn’t exist now (depending on your perspective), South Sydney were omitted then readmitted, and Sydney City is now just Sydney.
James said | October 15th 2009 @ 8:55am | Report comment
I don’t think that they have finalised the name yet. I like what they have done and what they will be doing with the Greater Western Sydney concept…I think most people in the region will know by the end of next year that a team in the AFL is on its way…no one does marketing quite like the AFL. To that end, I think GWS as a working title is fine for the short term to just build awareness
As for the final name, West Coast Eagles and Western Bulldogs have worked well.
However, rather then just focus on one area, i.e. Blacktown, perhaps another name like Sydney xxxxx will work fine…whatever the decision, you have rest assured that the AFL will complete their due dilligence…is there are better run professional sporting competition in the country??
Redb said | October 15th 2009 @ 10:12am | Report comment
James,
Just an observation….
They could have called the first Western Australian team in the AFL the ‘West Esperance Sea Eagles’ and it would have worked.
Not so sure the renaming of Footscray to ‘Western’ Bulldogs has made much of a difference given the club markets itself to the western suburbs of Melbourne particularly to migrants who dont carry the snobbish atttudes of those on the other side of the Yarra.
Redb
Michael C said | October 15th 2009 @ 10:27am | Report comment
Yeah, not sure we need another ‘West’ (ish) team,
but, the AFL doesn’t have any “Centrals”, and given that I doubt there’ll be an Alice Springs side in under the “Central Australia” banner, then,
let’s have the “Centrals”, avoiding “Central Districts” from the SANFL, but, either “Central Sydney”….i.e. more related to the demographic centre than the railway station!!!
The Truth said | October 15th 2009 @ 9:04am | Report comment
So then who the hell are Wests Tigers? Half that club came from a team which claimed, by name, to represent the greater western Sydney since 1908. Have things changed so much?
Chris said | October 15th 2009 @ 11:26am | Report comment
In fiarness the population of the West Sydney in 1908 was about the same as East/North and South Sydney. Now it is of course much larger. Wheras then “Western Suburbs” basically referred to a small town with a common identity, now it clearly does not.
Michael C said | October 15th 2009 @ 9:10am | Report comment
The name “Western Sydney Football Club Ltd” is the registered legal name. THey needed something.
The website refers to “TEAM GWS” which is a ‘working title’,
there’s absolutely nothing finalised at this point.
Personally I reckon “SydneyFC” and “Sydney Rovers” is a bit wrong…but, then I have to look at more regional examples and just look at a Wangaratta example of Wangaratta Football Club, Wangaratta Rovers Football Club (both in the O&M) and then North Wangaratta in the O&K….and on that basis I have to accept that there’s no problem with two “Sydney” soccer teams.
But I still don’t like it.
anyway, back in mid August when the AFL launched ‘Team GWS” and announced the Community Advisory Group etc, they also stated the following:
“The involvement and support of the local community is essential, from designing the team’s name, the team’s logo, colours, theme song and even the team mascot. We want people in the area to take ownership of this club.”
Michael B said | October 15th 2009 @ 9:17am | Report comment
Easy fix – Call both of them Sydney
Just change Sydney Swans name to Sydney Snobs & call the new Franchise Sydney Bogans
There you go. If there isn’t any identity in those names, then I’m not here!
Michael C said | October 15th 2009 @ 10:02am | Report comment
in respect to the tactics of some, how about the Nepean Flooders.
Pippinu said | October 15th 2009 @ 10:10am | Report comment
Are the nick names “silvertails” and “fibros” taken??
AndyRoo said | October 15th 2009 @ 10:11am | Report comment
There seem to be only a handful of people that don’t like the lack of West in the Sydney Rovers name that would actually ever support a Western Sydney A league team.
From 442 it was largely Sydney FC fans and people from interstate who just wanted clear differentiation in identities, I guess so they knew when to put on extra security….joking
I note Cpaa and KB had a big spiel but I suspect both are happy to support Sydney FC. Cpaa liked the bling element for example.
The way I see it zero people would be turned of by the lack of West, they may prefer West in the name but it’s not a deal breaker and as long as they play somewhere accessible they will still be on board
Putting west in the name however does turn some people off and has some negative connotations.
As for Michael B’s suggestion, I think the name “Bogans” is actually a realistic name for the AFL team. A large part of their marketing is the Australianess of their game. The name Bogans is pretty Australian and you would appeal to the proud to be a bogan niche. Not sure if that niche is the right niche to go for though J
Would generate a lot of press, perhaps announce it on April 1st next year…that way if it doesn’t work you can take it back.
Pippinu said | October 15th 2009 @ 10:16am | Report comment
AndyRoo
with a suggestion like that – you must be a marketing executive!!
AndyRoo said | October 15th 2009 @ 10:29am | Report comment
In fairness it was Michael B’s suggestion… so I don’t deserve that executive title yet.
Redb said | October 15th 2009 @ 10:35am | Report comment
not one i’d employ
Michael C said | October 15th 2009 @ 10:23am | Report comment
West Sydney iBoguns 2.0
??
Pippinu said | October 15th 2009 @ 10:27am | Report comment
Someone on another thread has said how good the name “Greater Sydney” sounds (without the West) – and it’s a good point – might be worth contemplating for the AFL.
But I still think the all black guernsey is an innovative and unique proposition – that no one has ever done anywhere in the world.
Michael C said | October 15th 2009 @ 10:53am | Report comment
so the chanting throng nearing the end of the game…..none of this “SSYYDD–NEEEE, SSYYDD–NEEEE, SSYYDD–NEEEE”,
it’d be “GGRREAAATTE—-EERRRR, GGRREAAATTE—-EERRRR, GGRREAAATTE—-EERRRR”,
groan, it’d be so grating.
Pippinu said | October 15th 2009 @ 11:42am | Report comment
The Graters?
BigAl said | October 15th 2009 @ 2:24pm | Report comment
I think Port Adelaide are heading down the all black path.
Pippinu said | October 15th 2009 @ 2:35pm | Report comment
with pencil thin white vertical stripes?
Firestarter Bob said | October 15th 2009 @ 11:52am | Report comment
I don’t think that they should have a place name at all. That way when the AFL realises its a dead cause, they can relocate the team to somewhere else.
It’s also stupid to think the residents of Parramatta, Penrith, Blacktown etc are going to get behind a new team that plays out of Homebush.
I’m sure the people of Blacktown will have a great time wandering down to the HQ of the “GWS Whatevers” where they will cheer on the club office buildings and training field.
Michael C said | October 15th 2009 @ 12:30pm | Report comment
The residents of such areas may have to get used to it if they all want to get in and see their NRL teams…..most the suburban venues are too small and surely some form of ground rationalisation is needed. This whole white elephant Homebush stadium situation is ridiculous.
The old VFL fans had to adapt, and they did, over time, to no longer just catching a tram to their ground or walking through their suburbs back streets – - and instead, a trek to the footy involves a train ride or arriving early enough to secure a carpark.
But, when you get 40,000 or more in, instead of 17,500,…….surely that’s a better outcome??
Firestarter Bob said | October 15th 2009 @ 12:57pm | Report comment
“The residents of such areas may have to get used to it if they all want to get in and see their NRL teams”
So that’s your answer to AFL’s Blacktown problem?
You think that Penrith will play at Homebush? Go get Google maps and check out the distance.
You think the Eels and the State government will want the Eels to turn Parramatta Stadium into a white elephant?
There is no train line on the northern beaches for Warringah and Manly to get to Homebush or anywhere else.
When I lived in Sydney it was impossible to move around Sydney on a Friday afternoon or evening to get to Homebush. It can’t have improved under the current state goverment. The government only puts on buses and extra trains to Homebush for Swans, Socceroos and Wallabies games. it doesn’t do it for normal NRL games.
Sydney is not Melbourne.
Aljay said | October 15th 2009 @ 3:37pm | Report comment
I’ve seen Homebush mentioned so much in relation to Western Sydney teams for AFL, soccer etc. Its worth pointing out to all non-Sydneysiders that Homebush is in the eastern QUARTER of Sydney. Its not in Western Sydney at all and many many miles from Blacktown, Campbelltown, Penrith, the Hills district and all other places mentioned as a base for 2nd AFL, soccer teams..
Hit And Rum said | October 15th 2009 @ 1:19pm | Report comment
Sydney? Greater? What about New South Wales or NSW combined with whatever mascot they choose – Squatters? Mortgage Belts? United? Sprawls?
LK said | October 15th 2009 @ 1:42pm | Report comment
Umm, I thought WS18 was going to have some sort of Canberra component? Shouldn’t that be reflected in the name?
James said | October 15th 2009 @ 1:48pm | Report comment
I think the ACT wanted for that to happen….with the deal including major sponsorship with the ACT government with conditions such as playing a minimum number of games at Manuka Oval. I don’t know what the latest is…Here are the latest atricles I could find….http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-sport/canberra-links-for-second-sydney-side-20090531-brdv.html
Followed by this one: http://www.theage.com.au/news/rfnews/canberra-rejects-afl-bid-as-it-waits-for-18th-club/2009/06/15/1244917985296.html
Pippinu said | October 15th 2009 @ 1:57pm | Report comment
The AFL isn’t really interested in the ACT as a “senior” partner in the new team.
Interestingly, the ACT government was willing to fund the new A-League team to the tune of $2.5 mill, and they have said that if there are no guarantees of a Canberra team coming in for the next five seasons, they will redirect that cash to the new WS18 team.
No doubt that they can organise at least two games in Canberra per annum.
On top of that, like the Swans, their reserves would play out of the ACTAFL – which would be very good for that comp (who struggle to maintain six elite teams).
Redb said | October 15th 2009 @ 2:23pm | Report comment
can’t be all things to all people.
James said | October 15th 2009 @ 3:00pm | Report comment
I dont think they should be called NSW/ACT…I like the Sydney Whatevers idea is best…they have to represent to the 2 mil people in West Sydney….not Canberra. If the ACT wants a sponsorhip deal, whats to stop them doing somethng similar to a Hawthorn/Tasmania scenario? In this instance, the ACT government can sposnor the team and they can play 2-3 games a year in Canberra. The swans get good support in the nations capital, so a NSW team more affiliated with Canberra should also get good support. Plus, it leaves the option open for Canbera to one day perhaps get a team of their own, should the AFL allow it (i.e. similar to Tassie). I think this team will cost the AFL dearly for as many as 20 years (i.e a generation). If the ACT government are willing to chip in the big bucks to sponsor a team (and what better then a government to sponsor a team!) then it should be strongly considered…but not at the risk of alienating the potential supporter base.
LK said | October 15th 2009 @ 3:43pm | Report comment
Isn’t that what North did? They played a few games in Canberra for the bucks and talked of having a meaningful presence in the ACT. But they shot through when it got hard and when the Gold Coast $$ came along. Quite a few fans were miffed. It gave the impression that the AFL thinks of Canberra as a cash cow. It will be interesting to see how things pan out from a Canberra perspective.
James said | October 15th 2009 @ 4:22pm | Report comment
North! At the risk of pissing off the loyal North supporters out there, their club as a brand has about as much marketing credibility as Rebecca Wilson has being a journalist (i.e. close to zero). North tried Canberra, Gold Coast, and they even sold some games into the Sydney market itself. Didn’t take a genius in Brayshaw to figure out it was best to change the name back to North Melbourne as try and sure up the base.
The swans have shown strong support in the Nations Capital, and there is no reason why another NSW team (you know…the state that surrounds the ACT) would not have an equal or stronger level of success, should their government wish to be a sponsor or otherwise involved.
Republican said | October 15th 2009 @ 3:31pm | Report comment
What about old traditional demos that change over time i.e. Nth Melbourne?
The followers of this proud old club are now scattered throughout the country no doubt and probably not living in North Melbourne these days. They were struggling for an identity in the years they were generically branded as the Kangaroos, hedging at basing themselves in Canberra and then the GC. Now they are good old North once again but what does this actually stand for? St Kilda have naught to do with that suburb and should more accurately be called Waverly or South East Melbourne truth be known.
The ACT Brumby’s dropped any tribal referance to the team, re branding themselves the Brumby’s much to the chagrin of the local rugby community. This was justified in the guise of reflecting its broarding demographic support however, if this were indeed so, the name should more accurately have been changed to the ‘Southern Tableland Brumby’s.’
The reason the Brumby’s were genericised was to prepare the organisation for a relocation to Melbourne as well as allowing them to make inroads into a percieved Vic market, which still may be on the cards if the Vic bid for Super stardom does not eventuate.
Tribalism is still valid and so there may be an element of truth to this percieved Western Sydney branding folly but at the end of the day, I dont think it will make much difference because this is the accepted culture these days. By calling this brand Parramatta you set yourself up to go head to head with an age old traditional League culture and limit your potential tribal demographic. Being a new code to this demographic I believe the AFL have got it right by not limiting themselves to a parochial peice of the west.
Lets see what happens as the support for the game evolves, because one day they may very well morph into the ‘Mt Druit Dominators’ for all we know.
Republican said | October 15th 2009 @ 3:42pm | Report comment
The Canberra connection is very real and I personally would be very keen to have them based there however the market is potentially so much greater in then West.
If things go pear shaped for a WS expansion I would not be suprised to see this brand re locate to the Nations Capital, since this new side will be using the ACT nursery in order to survive for at least a decade and a half, if not more.
Republican said | October 15th 2009 @ 3:56pm | Report comment
Pippinu
I can safely say that you would glean far greater support for an AFL side in the Capital than you would for any Soccer equivalent. The GR of Soccer is higher which is consistent with the rest of the country but not the support at the elite spectator level.
The $’s required for the ACT to simply host a couple of AFL fixtures / year is far greater than the asking price for any soccer backing. The AFL are expediently keeping the Canberra demographic engaged as they recognise it’s proportionally high standard of GR’s however they are unlikely to ever honour this region or Tassie for that matter, with any elite AFL presence.
I believe ironically and to the games ultimate detriment, that NZ are more likely to get that gig and without an iota of quality GR’s, before either of these footy states do; and believe me Canberra is a footy state contrary to any mis informed perception that Union and League have a monopoly in this respect.
Simmo said | October 16th 2009 @ 9:50am | Report comment
Having lived in Canberra for the last 11 years I think it’s accurate to say that the four codes split support quite evenly.
Gweeds said | October 15th 2009 @ 4:14pm | Report comment
Steven’s article reflect posts written in one of the best football blogs (IMHO) ‘The Football Tragic’ by Mike Salter.
http://thefootballtragic.blogspot.com/
As a Sydney-sider he has commented on the West Sydney A-League bid and he say what Steven says about Western Sydney.
“One of the fundamental misconceptions concerning a Western Sydney bid is that the area is monolithic, in terms of regional loyalty. Penrith is Penrith, Campbelltown is Campbelltown, Parramatta is Parramatta, and so on. Sydney FC’s basic catchment area is the inner city and the east, which forms a natural demographic in many respects. The vast expanse of outer Sydney suburbia is quite a different animal.
I also feel that the most passionate football fans west of Ryde are already taken, as it were. The seething hostility towards the A-League among many fans of the state league clubs is not to be underestimated (a couple of hours spent in the stands at Jensen or Belmore would convince anyone of this), and although these would hardly be expected to make up the core supporter base, they would be handy in terms of bumping up numbers initially.”
Michael C said | October 15th 2009 @ 4:37pm | Report comment
The difference is, the soccer allegiences are perhaps already ’spoken for’, but,
this mentality ignores for example the AFL experience with the Adelaide Crows……at the SANFL level and old VFL level, everyone already had an allegience. The ‘Adelaide’ is just a ‘generic’ representation that ignores Glenelg vs Elizabeth vs Flinders vs whomever,……but it works.
The main thing is that – what ever Team GWS18 is called – - the main thing is that ‘works’ the region. It works the schools, does the clinics, and hospitals and the like. It is or should be more via deeds than name that a club is able to connect and engage with a region.
Redb said | October 16th 2009 @ 9:53am | Report comment
Very relevant post and opinion.
The AFL faces a similiar task Swans = Sydney FC. Reckon futbol has a greater advantage with its huge participant base, you only need to engage 10-15% and create new fans for the team and A League.
The AFL will be striving to create new fans but with a much lower participant base.
Redb
Elbusto said | October 17th 2009 @ 6:35am | Report comment
Redb – its ‘Football’. Now lets spell it out loud ‘F O O T B A L L’.
And its called FOOTBALL all over the world.
SideShowBob said | October 17th 2009 @ 7:12am | Report comment
Except in those parts of the world (US?) where it is called S O C C E R.
And to think you actually know your sport…
Elbusto said | October 17th 2009 @ 7:17am | Report comment
America makes up about 5% of the worlds population Bob. Go South America Asia and Europe and its football – they are the funny places were 95% of the population of the world exists – and thats where Football is Football.
SideShowBob said | October 17th 2009 @ 7:26am | Report comment
No doubt Elb, but why say that it is called FOOTBALL everywhere, when clearly it is not?
Chris said | October 17th 2009 @ 8:31am | Report comment
I highly doubt Asia calls it football. Instead they would call it whatever its called in their own languages. Remember – 75% of the English speaking world calls it soccer.
Redb said | October 17th 2009 @ 8:46pm | Report comment
no its futbol on the Roar to many of us, sort of a half way house between soccer and football
Depending on what part of the country you come from, football is played with a Sherrin.
Elbusto said | October 17th 2009 @ 7:52am | Report comment
Well Bob because I decided to. If it makes you feel better then I will make the USA an exception. It must really hurt you that Football is now being referred to as Football in Australia now as well.
The point is, despite your obsession with semantics, that Football across the world means Football. There may be an exception but if you say Football anywhere in Europe South America or Asia it does not mean AFL.
In fact 99.9% of people in those spaces would not know what AFL was.
SideShowBob said | October 17th 2009 @ 7:08pm | Report comment
Perhaps so, but that too is changing and we can only move up from here.
Furthermore, last time I checked the sport you call “AFL” was officially called “Australian Football”, “Aussie Rules” or even “Footy”. “AFL” is the correct name for the leading professional league operating out of Australia, and is also but one (albeit the premier) of a growing number of “Australian Football” playing national leagues (amateur) worldwide.
Glad to clear that up for you.
– Semantics police
Robbos said | October 17th 2009 @ 6:39am | Report comment
Go hard Elbusto, educate them.
Elbusto said | October 17th 2009 @ 6:56am | Report comment
LMFAO!!!!!
Chris said | October 17th 2009 @ 8:33am | Report comment
ROFL LOL WTF ROFLCOPTER!!!!
Save the LOL’s and LMFAO’s for the Luke Perry fan club boards where they belong.
Redb said | October 17th 2009 @ 8:47pm | Report comment
yeah, this ones a ring in.
Elbusto said | October 17th 2009 @ 7:00am | Report comment
MrE said | October 17th 2009 @ 8:27am | Report comment
most sensible thing you’ve said for some time !
Pippinu said | October 17th 2009 @ 8:04am | Report comment
Here is my attempt to do some education.
This is the wikipedia article on the word “football”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football
Note that it’s the English language article – not the French article, or some other language, but the English language article.
This point is crucial.
The official language in Australia is English (as it is in the US and most of Canada).
When one looks at the native English speakers who use the word “football” as a shortening for Association Football, those native English speakers are so far in the minority it’s not funny.
That’s why Wikipedia has this particular article on the word “football”.
Because it’s the English language version of Wikipedia (not the French language, or some other language).
Chris said | October 17th 2009 @ 8:19am | Report comment
Spot on Pip! There are 6 English speaking countries (as a primary language). In two of them (USA and Canada) Football refers to American and Candadian Football (or Gridiron as we call it). In one of them (Ireland) Football refers to Gaelic football. In Great Britain it refers to soccer. In NZ it refers to Rugby. In Australia (depending on where you are) it refers to Aussie Rules, Rugby League or Soccer. This whole idea of Australia being on its own in calling Soccer “Soccer” is a myth and nothing more.
Elbusto said | October 17th 2009 @ 8:53am | Report comment
How very Anglo of you Chris – of course you conveniently forget the Billions who refer to Football in reference to only one game.
By the way in Ireland they do not call Gaelic Football ‘Football. And in New Zealand and Australia the media is increasingly referring to Football as Football.
You and your anglo mates are a diminisihing minority.
lol
Chris said | October 17th 2009 @ 8:56am | Report comment
These “billions” don’t actually speak English. It is so easy to get under the skin of a soccer person – just call it soccer. They can’t stand the fact that sporting monoculture is an illusion of theirs rather than reality.
MrE said | October 18th 2009 @ 11:59am | Report comment
‘Food bowl’ would be more appropriate in some of these countries.
Michael C said | October 20th 2009 @ 11:59am | Report comment
“you conveniently forget the Billions who refer to Football in reference to only one game.”
Ah, but in hundreds of languages, and as per the general usage of the word, that the local ‘qualifier’ is not required if disambiguation is not an issue. i.e. a single dominant code allows most people to assume what is referred to. Rather like asking for a ‘cola’ at Maccas – you ain’t going to be offered Pepsi. That’s easy enough to understand. That usage doesn’t mean anything about the real meaning of ‘football’. Although, the Rugby folk in the Olympics should grow some balls and ensure that the game is called “Rugby Football”!!!
perhaps the greater truth is that the mono-culture footballing nations need to remove their blinkers and learn that football is a bigger world than just soccer.
At any rate – I still love that the British pulication “World Soccer” magazine claims to be the leading authority on international football.
A bit of a contradiction in terms there ain’t it?? I’ve not seen many AFL, NFL or Rugby stories in there!!!!
Fair enough, Soccer360 comes out of Canada, but, ironically claims to be for fans of “The greatest game”……funny, I thought that was Rugby League (I keep hearing).
At any rate, ‘Football’ is a broader word than a single brand. Just as ‘purple’ is a broader colour than just that used by Cadbury. FIFA can do all it likes to try to convince everyone it’s the one true ‘football’, but, in the English speaking world, they’ve started from behind the 8 ball and the marketing exercise element of it is there for all to see.
Elbusto said | October 20th 2009 @ 4:58pm | Report comment
Michael you write a lot of drivel. Its always a sign of a really weak argument. Football is Football. AFL is a small sport played in a small country. Real Football dwarfs it. AFL has no future at all except in the small minds of blinkered people like you.
mushi said | October 30th 2009 @ 4:06pm | Report comment
Drivel? He’s actually arguing that as a colloquial term and as such the culture is important in terms of its interpretation.
Maybe you just cant grasp such small concepts
Michael C said | October 30th 2009 @ 4:32pm | Report comment
Mushi -
thankyou for the support.
MyGeneration said | October 30th 2009 @ 4:20pm | Report comment
And “Football is Football” is a strong argument?
The Link said | October 20th 2009 @ 9:36am | Report comment
Grant Mayer is a good operator and a smart acquisition by the AFL team in WS. Given he hasn’t had a job since June or so its hard to see how he’s been poached by anyone.
James said | October 20th 2009 @ 4:23pm | Report comment
Lots of news on Western Sydney today (Mayer, concessions etc)…a new article perhaps someone…
peterh_oz said | November 2nd 2009 @ 7:48am | Report comment
Being a born & bred “westie”, brought up on Australian Football, I have said all along that the team’s biggest hurdle is the fact that executives in their ivory towers in Sydney and Melbourne think that Homebush is West. It is west of the harbour, but it is a bloody long way EAST of Blacktown.
The West Sydney Westies is supposed to be a Blacktown club – with backing from Blacktown Council, training in Blacktown and their headquarters in Blacktown.
THEY MUST BE NAMED BLACKTOWN AND THEY MUST PLAY IN BLACKTOWN.
If they don’t, they are doomed to failure.
Unfortunately
STRATTS said | December 4th 2009 @ 9:18pm | Report comment
With a man like Kevin Sheedy on board this is going to give the AFL a real chance of success .
My mate Hussy & I have been tossing up names for this new franchise for some time & we thought maybe the West Sydney Falcons.
I’m having 2nd thoughts though …..maybe Greater Sydney Falcons would be more acceptable.
With a logo like a Falcon in full attack mode
…….Just a thought ……….
Jeff Baxter said | October 17th 2009 @ 9:49am | Report comment
I’m English and i’ve called it football, soccer, footy – pretty interchangeable in my experience.