By SSA -
November 17th 2009 @ 6:42am
Get a Roar profile
Loading ...Related coverage
Why fans need their own national lobby group
Two years ago, I attended an NRL match in Brisbane and sat next to a man and his three primary school age children.
During the half time break we began talking and I learnt that ‘Steve’ was a single dad earning around $55,000 a year and, by his estimation, had spent close to $200 that day on return transport, tickets, food and the cheapest supporters merchandise for his daughter.
At the end of the match, he told me it would probably be the last game he attended that season because he couldn’t afford it. One of his kids heard our conversation and broke into tears. ‘Steve’ looked shattered as we shook hands and he walked off with his three kids.
From that conversation, planning commenced that culminated this week in the launch of Sport Supporters Australia.
Why do fans need their own lobby group?
Well ‘Steve’ is not an isolated case.
As the battle for the hearts, minds and wallets of sports fans in Australia is set to intensify in coming years with new teams and new codes in Australia’s major cities – with the major sports all looking at ways to increase revenue – the ‘Steves’ of this world are being squeezed to breaking point.
Our board doesn’t think that is fair or sustainable in the long run for sport in Australia.
Australia has a multi billion dollar sporting industry and we think it is about time the major stakeholders in that industry – the fans – were truly represented at the board table, with Government and in the media on the issues that matter to and affect supporters.
Every other major industry in Australia has its own lobby group representing the key stakeholders. Why should the sporting industry be any different?
More so when the following decisions that could affect you and I as sports fans are presently sitting on the boardroom table of the major codes or on the desk of the Federal Minister for Sport.
Pending decision at present:
- The decision by the Federal Government on what sporting events will be shown live on free and pay television.
- A meeting is taking place today between media executives and the major sporting codes to decide what sport can be shown on the television news and on new media devices. The major sports want to control the content shown and even censor reporting of incidents and controversy
- The major sports have been approached by some gambling organisations with a proposal that would see you able to bet live on your mobile phone on kicks at goal in Rugby, AFL and NRL. Before you get too excited, have a think about the implications for problem gamblers and the integrity of sport issues given the AFL tanking and alleged throwing of a match by the Roosters at the end of the last NRL season.
- The Federal Sports Minister has a report sitting on her desk that recommends cutting funding to elite sport in favour of sending it to grass roots health prevention initiatives. Are fans happy to accept that funding for facilities and elite sporting programs are going to be cut? If so, get ready for higher ticket prices each time you want to go to a game, as the codes will need to make up the revenue somehow.
- Did you know the major sports are looking at ways of making more premium priced tickets available next season, while cutting the number of lower cost general admission tickets?
These are just a few of the issues that are on our agenda right now. We’d welcome your thoughts on these and others you consider hot topics.
As thought starters, at our last Board meeting we discussed the following:
- A proposal that the AFL consider implementing golden point rather than settle for drawn matches.
- A proposal for the NRL to introduce a system whereby player transfers happen out of season.
- A proposal that would see the Federal Government impose financial penalties on free to air television stations that don’t show matches live rather than on delay in the early hours.
- A proposal to sell tickets for rugby union test matches at a price depending on how the Wallabies are performing. I.e. price vs performance. If they lose several matches and are out of the race for the Tri Nations next year, drop the ticket price and perhaps still fill the stadium with people attracted to paying a cheaper price while the players get to play before a full house. A maximum price would be capped if they do perform.
Sport Supporters Australia would also welcome your involvement with us and it is why we have signed on with The Roar as our official media partner.
We have also established a number of advisory committees for all the major sports that will report to our board. The recommendations of those sub committees will form the policy positions, submissions, media and government lobbying campaigns we present to the CEO’s of the major spectator sports and the Government.
Like any lobbying organisation, our voice will become more powerful through our strength in numbers.
I can reveal that next week we intend to write to the CEO’s of the major sporting codes, suggesting a new penalty system be introduced for players who misbehave.
Using the Brendan Fevola saga as an example – why should he have his contract terminated at Carlton only to be allowed to go and join the Brisbane Lions?
Why not fine him, halve his contract for the next 12 months, make him stay at Carlton so the fans still have a realistic hope of seeing their team win a premiership and make him work twice as hard on and off the field to ensure Carlton have a crack at the flag?
Just a final thought on why Sport Supporters Australia is needed.
I did a radio interview this week and was told by the presenter that prior to interviewing me, he had asked a leading sports administrator what he thought about Sports Supporters Australia? The administrator responded that “We already talk to our fans.”
I responded by saying that we want sporting administrators to talk with fans. We are still a long way from getting to that point.
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...
(45)
Kurt said | November 17th 2009 @ 7:14am | Report comment
This is the most bizarre load of nonsense I have read in a long time. So at your last board meeting you decided that AFL matches should be decided by a golden point? WTF? I mean seriously, WTFF? Maybe AFL matches should be decided by a dance-off, with the style (ballroom, Latin or contemporary jazz) chosen by the home-team, maybe Broncos merchandise should be given away free of charge to the likes of Steve and his family and maybe sporting bodies should be harder on players who misbehave but for goodness sakes surely all of these matters are for the sporting bodies themselves to decide, not for you to pontificate on? As much as we sometimes kid ourselves otherwise, these are not essential services we’re talking about – no-one died because they couldn’t afford to watch a poor-performing Wallabies side, or because the AFL sticks to its tradition of drawn matches.
We’re all entitled to our opinion on these matters but the idea that fans need some sort of collective body to express opinions on our behalf as if we’re poor downtrodden sweat-shop workers is a load of crypto-Marxist nonsense. Let the AFL, NRL, FFA and ARU make decisions on how to run their organisations and let the market sort it out.
Redb said | November 17th 2009 @ 8:11am | Report comment
maybe they should have consutled AFL fans – golden point?
2-3 draws a year big deal – non issue.
mitzter said | November 17th 2009 @ 10:21am | Report comment
I HATE golden point in nrl except for the big games. If you can’t win it in time then you don’t get the points -sorry!
And even then play extra time NOT golden point
sheek said | November 17th 2009 @ 7:49am | Report comment
SSA? An interesting concept with which I wish to familiarize myself with more knowledgeably, before commenting further.
However, re the golden point rule, I am totally opposed to this concept for home & away regular season matches, in any footy code, as it is clearly driven by sports betting. And I believe that to be wrong.
By all means, I support having a ‘flutter’, but when we are dictated to by sports betting agency, then we’re heading for trouble. At the end of the day, sports betting agencies are only interested in their bottom line, not the welfare of any particular sport.
Extra time in finals matches is fine, & also practical, but not required in regular season matches. It’s a con…..
Luke W said | November 17th 2009 @ 7:52am | Report comment
My major issue with this article is your assumption that access to elite level sport is a right everyone should have. Well, sorry to break the news, but it isn’t. Australia is a free market and the various administration bodies of our elite sports are running businesses. They are completely within their rights to charge whatever price they want for tickets/merchandise. In fact, it all comes down to supply and demand. Sure, maybe “Steve” can’t afford to go to a game every week, but why should the administrations of these sports lower prices when there are 10k+ people that are willing to pay the higher price.
Look, I understand that it can be expensive for a day at the footy, but in the end it is a luxury, not a necessity. If people cannot afford it, it is a sacrifice they have to make.
mitzter said | November 17th 2009 @ 12:45pm | Report comment
Luke, luke luke
Absolutely games are a ripoff!!
NO Luke, watching a game in a half full stadium is not a luxury. Access to elite sport should be available to the common man if you want the common man to support it
$40 for a single ticket – RIPOFF!!
$8 for a beer – RIPOFF!!
$8 for a crappy hamburger – RIPOFF!!
I don’t think “steve” wanted to go to the football every week but I do think he wanted more than once a year and get value for money for his family (they obviously loved it).
I agree they are within their rights it doesn’t mean it’s right!!!!
I think the main reason regular season tickets are so expensive is because they give so many away to corporate sponsors. Most games I have gone to in the last year have been from freebies from other peoples companies
Gerry Faehrmann said | November 17th 2009 @ 6:28pm | Report comment
Further to this point is that sport administrators are managing businesses that offer unique products (in niche markets) which people are prepared to indulge in by paying seemingly high prices.
Michael C said | November 17th 2009 @ 7:56am | Report comment
Tell the dad to buy no frills season memberships…….(I’ve got a very similar situation – AFL though – , and we buy a ‘family 5′ plus one – - – 5 games for the year will do, and then the boys through their Auskick get a couple of free family passes. Relatively easy done on a budget. Surely the NRL has equivalents??)
re golden point in AFL……what for??? We get 1 or 2 drawn games a year….at most…..in general. Main place for a ‘golden point’ if need be would be an extra time finals match still drawn after ET.
Bay35Pablo said | November 17th 2009 @ 8:03am | Report comment
While a laudable aim, I see several major problems:
1. It is a wide area the SSA is trying to cover. The focus will be on the major codes, which may leave the supporters of less popular codes (e.g. hockey, athletics) feeling unloved.
2. It is trying to be all things to all people. There will be differences of opinion, and in taking one approach the members that disagree will feel ignored unless there is a process. The AFL golden point is an example. The Board has to ensure the members feel the Board is acting after consultation, not just running their own views.
3. Legitimacy of what the SSA says will be dependent on a wide membership base. Otherwise it is just a few vocal fans that can be fobbed off, and the codes will feel they can ignore the rabble rousers. When you can say you represent 100,000 sports fans, or 10,000 basketball fans, and have something to say (like 76% of members think X), the they’ll pay attention. Numbers means money.
Brett McKay said | November 17th 2009 @ 8:03am | Report comment
On the contrary Kurt, SSA sounds like exactly the sort of organisation Andrew Logan had in mind with his idea for the creation of Rugby Australia, which was in essence, a rugby-specific lobby group. We all get to have our say here on The Roar, but SSA will actively lobby the sporting bodies. It’s actually quite a good idea, and it’s a way for sports supporters to have a voice.
Even better, with The Roar a media pertner for SSA, it could even mean that ideas presented in our forum here now have a genuine chance of gaining greater traction with the respective sporting body, via SSA. And that’s got to be better than the hope that some AFL/NRL/ARU/CA/FFA (etc) office boy happens to stumble accross a topic generating constructive debate among Roarers.
Give SSA some time, they could just be exactly what we sports supporters have wanted..
Redb said | November 17th 2009 @ 8:19am | Report comment
Problem is Brett you can’t be all things to all people.
How do you stop a skewing of people from certain sports dominating the SSA and thus seizing the agenda. eg: Making suggestions like the ‘golden’ point which is clearly a RL thing not required in AFL.
The last thing I desire is for out of touch people making assumptions about my sport that they dont understand.
It is entirely unwieldy in it’s present form and would be more appropriate if based around each sport like the Rugby Australia idea.
Redb
Brett McKay said | November 17th 2009 @ 8:25am | Report comment
I don’t disagree Redb, and the “too broad” argument came to me early too, I’m just suggesting we should be open to something like this – becuase it might just go well – rather than consign it to certain failure.
Kurt said | November 17th 2009 @ 8:42am | Report comment
But the only genuinely successful lobby groups are those that represent a reasonably clearly defined viewpoint on behalf of a relatively homogenous group. What is the point of SSA? Is it to provide access to elite sport for low income earners? To reduce the threat posed by the vast number of drawn AFL games? To lobby the government for more funding to minority sports? Or is it just a whinge-fest for every disgruntled supporter who reckons he knows how to fix the game? Based upon the agenda described in the article it’s the latter, and I just don’t know how such a group could be taken seriously.
AndyRoo said | November 17th 2009 @ 9:40am | Report comment
Kurt has said pretty much what I wanted to say…but better.
I first saw an article on this a while ago (can’t remember the source) and it sounded much more focussed on the live viewing experience (ticket prices, parking costs and food prices/rules) and I thought their may be some merit in a lobby group for this purpose.
Take the Bne Roar for example, they implemented new ticket prices at the start of the season and saw a drastic decline in support. Fans complained amongst themselves and a few emailed in but people basically had to stop showing up before the club realised that prices were a big issue. For the rest of the season they have brought in a new catagory of seating that has finally catered for those who stopped going for pricing reasons.
If this suporter group was a strong lobby with any sort of credibility it may have been able to convey the public’s oppinion to the clubs much faster. A supporters union as such but they really need to narrow their focus. By getting involved in more things then their is a much higher chance that one of their proposals is for something I dont agree with.
I might be on board with asking for a relaxing of people being able to bring their own food and drinks into a stadium but I am not in favor of making players wait until the seasons over to secure their families future. So I can’t support this group.
I probably wouldn’t join anyway though, I tend to think the business side of sport should exist in a free market since we have 4 codes of Football. If Rugby only wants to cater for the top earnign demographics they should be free to do so.
Brett McKay said | November 17th 2009 @ 10:09am | Report comment
Kurt, AndyRoo, even the successful lobby groups have to start somewhere, and I wouldn’t mind betting some even started broad before narrowing their focus accordingly….
BigAl said | November 17th 2009 @ 11:39am | Report comment
- . . . before narrowing their focus accordingly … and eventually disappearing !
I remember when the old VFL started going national there was the usual reaction from groups that just don’t like change.
There was one ‘classic’ group formed called The Suburban Football Association, whose spokesperson was an overweight single mum (no offense intended) who got PLENTY of media coverage, especially considering the points she was continually raising – keeping games at suburban cesspools, price control on pies …
Haven’t heard from them for quite some time now.
Can anyone nominate an organisation such as proposed here – with a credible track record , which could be used as a model ?
Tom said | November 17th 2009 @ 8:22am | Report comment
‘Sports supporters’ is far too diverse a group for any one organisation to claim to represent. You only need to look at this forum to see the wide ranging arguments about all manner of things.
The only way this kind of lobby group could be effective is if it assembled a bunch of people with similar ideologies pushing for the same kind of things. Judging by your article, it would seem that reducing costs is one of your first concerns. That’s not necessarily the biggest issue for a lot of supporters. Me, for example. So it would seem unlikely that Sport Supporters Australia will ever be able to claim that it represents all Australian sport supporters.
SSA said | November 17th 2009 @ 8:52am | Report comment
Really appreciate the feedback and want to make a few points to clarify.
* SSA has been set up to ensure that the important issues that impact upon all fans are given the best chance of getting an airing in the media or with the sports themselves because the Board has the background to do that, the majority are passionate sport fans, all volunteers and think fans don’t actually (but should) have a voice when decisions are made about issues that affect supporters.
* The ideas presented in our Roar article are just that – ideas for discussion. Some of these were raised by fans who were part of focus groups before we set up SSA that is why we brought them up here. We don’t agree with or disagree with any of them. At the end of the day, our members and sub committees will decide what are the important issues that we lobby on or talk about in the media.
* We have no way of being able to be all things to all people and we know it isn’t feasible to be able to take on every issue that every individual feels passionate about. At the end of the day, we will lobby on the issues that our members feel are most important.
* The Board doesn’t have their own agenda and indeed, we have one person on the Board who has little interest in sport but is fantastic at being able to cut the emotion out of the debates we have, focus on areas of influence where we will have an impact and who we need to target to do that.
* We agree that SSA is nothing without a strong membership base. That is why we want knowledgeable sports fans to join, suggest campaigns, nominaye for sub-committees and work with us on the issues that matter. The comment about Andrew Logan’s group is correct. If you want change and to have issues addressed, you need groups like Rugby Australia and SSA.
Redb said | November 17th 2009 @ 10:58am | Report comment
SSA,
Then what is of concern, maybe I’m labouring the golden point, is that to kick off you need issues that resonate immediately with fans.
eg: Bringing in a golden point to settle draws would be a fair way down the wishlist for AFL fans. In fact the solutions for settling AFL game draws are around extra time or first goal, so the terminology is not even correct.
Some issues in AFL in IMO:
Bump rule intepretation – want to see common sense and consistency. Accidental head high contact should not result in suspension.
MCC member hogging tickets that could go to the public. Far too often public sections of the MCG sell out yet the attendance comes in around 85,000 in a ground capacity of 100,000.
Grand Final ticket allocations – too many corporates not enough for clubs.
Consultation on expansion choices.
Hands in the back rule – get rid of it.
Use of interchange – limit by total number in a game.
Centre Bounce and ball up congestion – need to look at restricting number of players around the ball. (tricky one)
Redb
bever fever said | November 17th 2009 @ 9:19am | Report comment
So this guy thinks that fans get charged to much …. and now he wants to change a AFL game to a golden point for a draw.
What !!!!
Michael C said | November 17th 2009 @ 9:35am | Report comment
What would be clear would be the need for SSA to lobby against itself……at times…..or to make some form of choice.
I’m not sure just what the imagined scope will be – - is this mainly a high level thing? Or is it imagines to get fingers dirty at a local level?
For example (and to avoid getting caught up in CURRENT debates) – let’s go back in time…..4 years ago. Talk of a rectangular stadium in Melbourne. The SSA would probably lobby on behalf of soccer/Rugby (both) interests that this must go ahead…..a fully public funded venue.
However, the AFL lobby component of SSA is lobbying that the AFL needs a 3rd venue – a boutique 30K venue and there is no publicly funded AFL venue in Melbourne.
SSA is lobbying both ways……
or, does the SSA board, make some form of value judgement? if so, on what basis?
SSA said | November 17th 2009 @ 10:01am | Report comment
Michael
Your comment about value judgements is correct. If you use the stadium example you put forward, it is likely that the value judgement would be “which sport/s’” have the reater need for a new facility at that time as governments don’t have the money to provide more than one major project at a time. However, all the various options would have to be discussed among SSA members to ensure that all sensible options were considered before SSA decided to go public and lobby with a position.
AndyRoo said | November 17th 2009 @ 10:19am | Report comment
That’s an interesting scenario… I dare say I love my particular codes more than sport in general. I would prefer say a new football stadium over a new aquatic centre even if the aquatic centre is better for sport.
I wouldn’t be keen on lobbying for anything that wasn’t in favor of my particular interests
I am selfish that way, but wouldn’t most people be?
Michael C said | November 17th 2009 @ 10:30am | Report comment
Because – the ‘relative’ need vs a ‘fair benefit’ as well,
i.e. the ‘football stadium’ scenario in Melbourne -
9 Melb based AFL clubs with a combined membership of around 350,000
using 2 effectively privately owned stadiums (effectively hostile management)
state funding about $77 mill vs ‘private equity’ of 10 times that (either Docklands or MCC)
the 9 clubs – NONE privately owned, all member based
Major financial issues relating to hostile venue management and deals
vs
2 real and 2 imagine rectangular code teams, all to be privately owned
the venue to be 100% state funded
combined actual membership of about 30,000.
already using combination of multi-purpose venue and Olympic Park
So – - – greater need – would be a moot point. The greater Exhibited need would be for AFL to get a publicly funded 3rd venue. The ‘imagined’ need – - the ‘build it and they might come’ relates more to the rectangular codes.
The benefit of a massive economic ‘free kick’ to rival codes……
Perhaps there’s a vastly different view on the issue from outside of Victoria compared to inside Victoria.
And, given the new rect. stadium is fully state funded…….is it appropriate for a ‘national’ viewpoint from SSA?? or leave it to their state branch???
Michael C said | November 17th 2009 @ 10:40am | Report comment
and the need to lobby on behalf of private interests??
the half NewsLtd owned NRL……I’d be thinking that wouldn’t be the point…..or…..would it be seen as a way to lobby TO the NRL rather than to Govt on their behalf??
AndyRoo said | November 17th 2009 @ 11:17am | Report comment
It seems clear that polling the membership and passing on their views with a break down on demographics would be the best use of a large membership.
SSA said | November 17th 2009 @ 10:40am | Report comment
The Minister for Sport has just released the Crawford Report into sports funding of elite and grass roots sport. Worth a read and can be found on the Minister’s website
Bay35Pablo said | November 17th 2009 @ 10:47am | Report comment
SSA, Link?
Bay35Pablo said | November 17th 2009 @ 10:46am | Report comment
In these times of email and web sites, the ability to conduct a straw poll of members should be easy for the SSA.
For example, in 2 years time, SSA has 50,000 members. It polls them about an issue the relevant sub-committee has considered and made a recommendation on, being say state 20/20 being on the anti-siphoning list. of the 30,000 members that respond 67% of members say on, 23% say no, and 10% say don’t care. The SSA can then say (i) it has consulted it’s membership, and (ii) can say to Cricket Australia etc in lobbying they rely on their surveying results as a basis for what fans are saying.
The alternative is the relevant sub-committee making its mind up, recommending it to the board, and the board acting on it, when the majority of fans (SSA or otherwise) might disagree vehemently.
An example is the AFL golden point issue. OK, it’s an idea, but until you can say what fans think, it is just whoever is on the board’s opinion, which means jack. Without that, SSA stands for Sports’ Self Appointed.
Brett McKay said | November 17th 2009 @ 10:52am | Report comment
Pablo, could you see merit in Rugby Australia having discussions with SSA about a way forward??
Bay35Pablo said | November 17th 2009 @ 10:56am | Report comment
Brett, Andrew has already raised that thought. But the agendas are very different. I expect RA will try to look at grass roots support, rather than getting into lobbying. Having said that, SSA is 12 months ahead of RA, so some of the structural and set up issues will be useful to have their thoughts on. I.e. what works and doesn’t, pros and cons for approaches, etc.
RA is really about to start working out if there is enough support to be feasible. SSA obviously have worked through that issue from their point of view. Andrew, I and anyone else involved don’t want to be wasting our time on a dead duck ….
Art Sapphire said | November 17th 2009 @ 11:53am | Report comment
Sorry to be Cynical, but –
SSA says “Like any lobbying organisation, our voice will become more powerful through our strength in numbers”
Cynical says – at $25 buck a pop to register, I can see people signing up in their droves.
SSA says – “I can reveal that next week we intend to write to the CEO’s of the major sporting codes, suggesting a new penalty system be introduced for players who misbehave”
Cynical says – That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever read. Is SSA also going to suggest the nature of the punishment.
How about putting Fev in stocks for 2 weeks outside the Gabba
Tom said | November 17th 2009 @ 12:12pm | Report comment
That Fevola example was a bit strange wasn’t it? How do you keep a player at a club when the club have decided they don’t want him?
This ‘organisation’ seems to be pretty amateur, really. Plus the concept is flawed. I can see some logic behind supporters associations for individual codes but I really don’t see how a broad sporting lobby group can be effective.
Bay35Pablo said | November 17th 2009 @ 1:17pm | Report comment
Art Sapphire, you have hit the nail on the head. There is a big difference between providing the supporters input on issues like anti-siphoning, and telling the codes how to run their businesses.
Starting off on issues like that is a guarantee to p!ss them off, and have them consigned the SSA to the rabble rouse brigade bin.
Stick, at least at the beginning, to issues the fans arguably should have some input on. TV, venues, ticketing, grass roots, etc.
Brett McKay said | November 17th 2009 @ 12:09pm | Report comment
Probably fair to say this isn’t quite the response SSA were hoping to receive from their first exposure via their Official Media Partner….
SSA said | November 17th 2009 @ 12:34pm | Report comment
The feedback is all fine and all points of view are valid Brett. We need to be able to listen to everyone’s views and try and get a group perspective but that isn’t always possible because fans will often have a different view on different issues. Our aim is to lobby on the issues that we can make some positive impact ie anti-siphoning regulations for a start. We also know that some people will want to get involved if they are passionate about particulalr issues and some won’t. We are here for the long haul and want to make a difference where we can.
I certainly appreciate everyone’s feedback today. Thanks
Brett McKay said | November 17th 2009 @ 12:38pm | Report comment
no probs SSA, you’ve certainly got the group perspective here today..
Fred Magee said | November 17th 2009 @ 12:24pm | Report comment
Perhaps…just perhaps we need to give the SSA some time to see how it wishes to execute on their charter, objectives etc. I am open to the idea of such an organisation and if it means that there is a voice that can access the boardrooms at Moore Park, Joilmont, Docklands etc…then it can only be a good thing.
Brett McKay said | November 17th 2009 @ 12:37pm | Report comment
exactly my point above Fred. Let’s see how they go before passing judgement..
Art Sapphire said | November 17th 2009 @ 1:11pm | Report comment
I can see the function in the organisations like SSA lobbying on a big broad, legislatives issues. E.G the anti-siphoning list.
But where you lose me and most other people is that by trying to find other fish to fry (lobbying for things like rule changes or the punishment of players) you will end up diminishing your credibility.
For example, the AFL would not give you the light of day. They cop enough flak from the media, the masses and stakeholders in regards to where the game is heading. They are not going to listen to the opinion of an SSA appointed AFL sub-committee.
Tom said | November 17th 2009 @ 1:39pm | Report comment
But again, most issues to do with anti-siphoning are about whether individual sports or events should be on the list or not.
Same with sports funding. Its generally up to individual sports to make their case for funding, rather than sport as a whole.
And, frankly, its the same with pretty much all the examples cited in the above article. I get why some people might want to lobby for changes in their particular sport, but I don’t understand why this would be more effectively done by a body that deals with all sports.
Redb said | November 17th 2009 @ 1:47pm | Report comment
The anti-siphoning laws are a tricky beast to tame. Heaps of vested interest from Pay tv operators and Free TV.
Some people are happy to pay for Foxtel and want all games on Fox, others insist on free to air.
For any sports body to take a view and lobby for a change they would need overwhelming numbers to ensure their result sample is an accurate reflection of public opinion and even then, go with better than 50-50, more like 80% plus before a suggestion was endorsed.
Redb
AndyRoo said | November 17th 2009 @ 2:03pm | Report comment
I think a body for all sports has merit because watching live sport a lot of complaints are universal and some are stadium related. In these times of multi purpose venues an organisation like this would be perfect for say lobying against the banning of the mexican wave and other fun killers at certain venues.
Tom said | November 18th 2009 @ 7:50am | Report comment
I’m starting to feel like a broken record here, but the mexican wave is only banned at cricket matches as far as I’m aware, so what are the issues that require a broad-based sport lobbying organisation?
What stance would it take on anti-siphoning laws? Keeping them? TV companies seem to be doing a great deal of lobbying already on this issue. As a sports fan, personally I’d get rid of them.
What stance would it take on stadiums? Build more? More seating? More standing? Is there a universal view thats common to a great majority of fans?
Example after example has been raised in this thread, but not one seems to satisfy the criteria of an issue that cuts across all sporting codes where there is likely to be a general consensus among sporting fans.
Michael C said | November 17th 2009 @ 2:04pm | Report comment
you mention the AFL and I think :
the AFL IS actually pretty good normally at seeking input via their website. There’ve been a number of surveys and invitation for comment in recent years.
AFL clubs are all member owned,
over 570,000 club members,
and an independant commission
so – - you’re going to need some pretty huge numbers in the SSA to give the AFL any reason to take notice.
and the example of ‘lobbying’ to the AFL….but the Howard govt…..that failed dismally (on the 3 strikes illicit drugs policy) – - shows the AFL is hard to budge if they’ve made up their mind and are backing themselves/partners in.
and heck….the AFL is 100% local……try lobbying to other codes who have to take it to the ‘international federation’.