Non-Australian expats growing the AFL game
Roar Guru By Michael C, 7 Jan 2010 Michael C is a Roar Guru
335 Have your say
For many people – and fairly so – the traditional view of Australian Football ‘clubs’ outside of Australia was of beer swilling ex-pat Aussies getting together for a social kick and a more social after match.
Gradually, we’ve seen more and more clubs and leagues overseas evolve to the point that ex-pat Aussies are often the minority, and in many cases, by some great proportion.
But does it still require ex-pat Aussies to start up clubs? Again, traditionally, this would be so. But this is no longer the case.
Example in point: the brand new University of Birmingham Sharks footy club.
Now ready to tackle the competition, the Sharks’ 22 man roster includes no Aussies and only founder, President and captain Tim Smith has any playing experience.
Smith discovered the game of Australian Football early in 2009, as a foundation player for the Birmingham Bears. The side finished runners up in the Central England region.
Smith, and team mate Ian Mitchell, have both gone on divergent ‘expansion’ paths — Mitchell with the formation of new senior team, the Wolverhampton Wolverines.
Meanwhile, Smith ran a stall at the University of Birmingham Sports Fair last September which has led to the establishment of the United Kingdom’s fourth active university-based club.
The Sharks report that they begin season 2010 by hosting 2008 Wales ARFL champions, the Cardiff Double Blues on 30th January, before embarking on a schedule that includes hosting Portsmouth, Huddersfield, Birmingham Bears and Wolverhampton, as well as visiting Cambridge, Chichester and Leeds Met Universities.
Footy in the UK is progressing quite nicely just for now. And, as per other examples, when Aussies need not apply to ensure expansion/formation and continuation, then the game itself is all the better for it.
Recommend this story.
The Turkey 10
The Turkey 10 teams have now been selected, as Wild Turkey Bourbon's sport sponsorship kicks into the next exciting phase.
Choose which side you're going to support and get in the running to win $2,500!
Simply visit Wild Turkey Australia on Facebook for your chance to win.
Find out more.
January 7th 2010 @ 11:39am
Republican said | January 7th 2010 @ 11:39am | Report comment
Michael C
Do you reckon that the game could well splinter over time, i.e. to say given varying O/S interpretations of our game going on un checked could this evolution compromise it’s Australian foundation, creating a whole new’ ball game’ in Europe, the U.S and Canada for eg and subsequently a new branding?
Cheers
January 7th 2010 @ 12:24pm
Michael C said | January 7th 2010 @ 12:24pm | Report comment
That’s a very good question.
Is the AFL in the right place or state of mind/capability to administer the game globally?
A couple of years back, many would’ve suggested a resounding ‘no’. Now though, the signs of activity at AFL House are much more positive.
I reckon you can only splinter if there’s a fair sized ‘alternate’ professional league in operation somewhere with potential backers etc – - – i.e. you could perhaps see a full splinter of RL based on UK vs Australia and in some respects there already probably is a ‘fracture’ at least if not a ‘splinter’!!!! In the AFL world – it’s already a case that the majority of ‘break outs’ of footy around the world began life as a ‘splinter’. Local rules have had to apply and the AFL HQ was never in a position to dictate. IF a full ‘AFL-Europe’ body can grow and prosper??? (I think there’s a conference ready to go in Jan??)
For the foreseeable future – the AFL should be able to retain control of sorts……or establish control at some point. The primary ‘vehicle’ I’d suspect would be for funded access to the ‘World’ and ‘Oceania’ junior talent pathways as an example. If the AFL is going to operate and fund and facilitate these programs – then, there’s a carrot for any league with serious developmental aspirations to fall in line on some front at least.
Branding wise the AFL has certainly attempted to push brand ‘AFL’, however, as commented elsewhere – ‘Aussie Rules’ seems to work best for many people.
January 7th 2010 @ 12:45pm
Norm said | January 7th 2010 @ 12:45pm | Report comment
-”Is the AFL in the right place or state of mind/capability to administer the game globally?” – But there’s nothing to administer!
January 7th 2010 @ 3:17pm
SideShowBob said | January 7th 2010 @ 3:17pm | Report comment
Not likely in the short to middle term.
Most people agree that almost all of the overseas leagues will remain at an amateur level (perhaps low level semi-pro in the case of AFL London, AFL South Africa) for the foreseeable future. But that doesn’t mean that they will not continue to grow and develop future AFL draft rookies.
Until another pro Australian Football league starts up somewhere else, the AFL will continue to be the global controlling body.
I can’t see a major restructure in the global administration of the game (ie FIFA or IRB equivalent) taking place until the leagues have significantly matured and the rather unlikely event that some serious “IPL” level seed funding from a rather altruistic backer or TV magnate (re: Kerry Packer & one-day cricket) is put on the table outside the AFLs control.
January 8th 2010 @ 9:08am
Ken said | January 8th 2010 @ 9:08am | Report comment
An interesting thought, of course it’s happened before. The gridiron codes (American and Canadian – both different) are long term, and now almost unrecognisable, evolutions of rugby.
January 12th 2010 @ 10:21am
VooDoo said | January 12th 2010 @ 10:21am | Report comment
But that also happened in a less global society. It’s hard to foresee a splinter in this age of instant communication and cable AFL games worldwide. There will continue to be those who disagree with the AFL’s management of international footy, but they usually are individualist by nature and find it difficult to coordinate. There also isn’t the time and isolation needed for a unique footy splinter to incubate to the point where it could challenge the AFL as the ‘custodians of the code’.
January 7th 2010 @ 11:58am
bever fever said | January 7th 2010 @ 11:58am | Report comment
I am pretty sure the top Uk league is 18 a side but some of the other comps are 9 a side or 12 a side, there is a good article on world footy news from a guy with some ideas about these developments. ( smaller teams )
It seems to me it would be far easier to organise 12 to 15 players than around 25 which is a pretty big task. (especially a new team)
Several positives of a smaller team or 9 ‘s would be the ability to use soccer/rugby grounds and their existing infrastructure overseas, also you get to use the ball more if their are less players.
In the future 9,s could take a leaf from rugby and play tournaments which from a travel, stadium, cost and organising perspective would be far easier than a full blown 22 a side tournament would be.
January 7th 2010 @ 1:23pm
Republican said | January 7th 2010 @ 1:23pm | Report comment
Michael C
I have no worries about the current ref to our games heritage in respect of ‘branding’ and do not accept that this need be a handicap to growing the game in any meaningful way, beyond these fatal shores.
Large populations i.e North America and Europe could well go it alone without necessarily commanding the status of established codes i.e American Footy, Soccer or Union in respective markets, because their populations make this quite feasible, unlike here in Oz.
I am indeed, more inclined to think that this is how our game will grow, rather than it ever threatening as a truely global competitor, with a governing body i.e. the AFL at the helm.
The game will continue to be fervently supported domestically, despite it’s percieved unilateral limitations, while a whole new game or indeed games will quite likely evolve out of it’s rather humble colonial type forays into countries around the globe .
Cheers
January 7th 2010 @ 1:33pm
Jim Wilson said | January 7th 2010 @ 1:33pm | Report comment
I notice RL is attempting to introduce a version of their game into schools & colleges in the US.
They are calling it Gridiron Rugby. From my understanding they are to play in the summer timeslot & attract Gridiron players who may wish to keep fit in the off season.
They have reduced the team numbers to 11 to accommodate the narrower American Football fields.
http://www.gridironrugby.com/index.html
Do you think the AFL could do something similar. Perhaps they could use baseball parks in the baseball off season & also modify the player numbers for these smaller arenas.
January 7th 2010 @ 2:29pm
Hueskes Speccie said | January 7th 2010 @ 2:29pm | Report comment
Why don’t the AFL just target large population nations? If they capture 1% of say Chinas population that is instantly more than the current AFL following in Australia. That is the way foward for AFL.
January 12th 2010 @ 10:27am
VooDoo said | January 12th 2010 @ 10:27am | Report comment
The AFL are staging an exhibition in China next year. The gist of the original article is more focused upon the fact that most of the development of Australian football internationally is being performed (and funded) by locals playing and administering the game independently of the AFL. The AFL provides some top-level funding, mostly for junior development, but at the adult level it’s mostly the ‘grassroots’ driving the growth.
There are a handful of teams in China now, up from zero a few years ago. I’m not familiar with the game there, but I daresay that language is one obstacle to promoting the sport, with so much of the footy content online written and filmed in English. Government approval of the sport, interest in Australian culture, disposable income, field availability and the presence of Australian expats (in starting the first few clubs) are other likely inhibiting factors in China and India.
January 7th 2010 @ 2:45pm
Michael C said | January 7th 2010 @ 2:45pm | Report comment
in the US they formulated a game called ‘metrofooty’.
January 7th 2010 @ 3:10pm
Michael C said | January 7th 2010 @ 3:10pm | Report comment
In the UK especially there’s a schools program running quite well.
Again – modified versions that serve a local purpose too,
as has been seen quite often, the kids have already chosen whether they are ‘soccer’ or ‘rugger’ players – and so, within the school environment it serves a good purpose to have a game like Aust Football where they can all come to the table so to speak and compete in the one game but bring different attributes from their preferred codes, …..and learning from scratch allows other kids to get involved too.
There’s a fair list of participating schools, and the British junior team that toured Australia last year was drawn from a number of the main schools that’ve been getting most seriously involved in proper inter-school competitions.
January 7th 2010 @ 1:36pm
Foxy Loxy said | January 7th 2010 @ 1:36pm | Report comment
The code’s gone nowhere since it was born. By what magic formula do you presuppose that it will now.
January 7th 2010 @ 10:26pm
Kamai said | January 7th 2010 @ 10:26pm | Report comment
I can see the yanks taking the piss out of fumbleball just like us Kiwis do!!!!!
January 8th 2010 @ 11:49am
Dogz R Barkn said | January 8th 2010 @ 11:49am | Report comment
The sight of big burly blokes trying to get up a gallop, and sucking in the big ones after 10 metres is quite amusing.
January 7th 2010 @ 2:21pm
Football Mad said | January 7th 2010 @ 2:21pm | Report comment
I play (association) football in Thailand. Play with a load of expats (eg Aussies, Brits, Germans, French, Africans, Scans, South Americans, Japanese), as well as Thais. We play on (association) football pitches at an international school in an organised league with Thai refs and assistant refs.
My (Aussie) mate (I am Aussie too) plays Aussie Rules here. No other nationalities other than Aussies play here. From what I have seen/heard, they play about 12-a-side on the football pitches we use, put up their own goalposts, and use cones to mark the touchlines. I understand they have three teams.
So, no sign of any non-Australians playing Aussie Rules here in Thailand.
January 7th 2010 @ 2:41pm
Michael C said | January 7th 2010 @ 2:41pm | Report comment
and Football Mad – that is precisely the image that has prevailed for so long,
however, over in Malaysia and in Indonesia there has been some progress with juniors and kids from the International school such that the last Asian championships included a ‘juniors’ section.
There’s been a disconnect too such that the ‘China’ team at the Asian Champs was predominantly expat Aussies compared to the all Chinese team that contested the International Cup in Melb last year.
The Asian champs has been more an ‘expats’ social exercise. Compare that to the Euro Cup and International Cup and these have more of a development flavour about them.
note the Middle East league that kicked off this year is mainly expats.
Thanx for your input.
January 12th 2010 @ 10:32am
VooDoo said | January 12th 2010 @ 10:32am | Report comment
Yep, that’s not uncommon early in the development of Aussie rules overseas, and particularly in Asia from what I have read. There seems to have been a reluctance either by the Asian clubs to engage locals in the game, or a reluctance by the locals to participate until recently, outside of Japan. But with locals participating now in greater numbers (relative to the expats playing) in China, Indonesia and Malaysia, it shows there is scope to increase local participation across Asia.
January 7th 2010 @ 2:47pm
Republican said | January 7th 2010 @ 2:47pm | Report comment
Ghost
Don’t you in fact mean ‘Australian Soccer’?
Cheers
January 7th 2010 @ 3:25pm
BigAl said | January 7th 2010 @ 3:25pm | Report comment
Oh ! . . . now I get it – so THATS what he was talking about !!
January 7th 2010 @ 4:03pm
rugbyfuture said | January 7th 2010 @ 4:03pm | Report comment
if the AFL or aussie rules game wants to expand it needs to do a number of things
1. Find a name: aussie rules doesnt really work and neither does afl with the locals apparently, the alternative name of soccer got it from asSOCIAtion football, rugby from the Private school it came from, league should go find its own name and Aussie Rules needs to develop one.
2. either change the number of players and fields to rectangular, therefore having a larger infrastructure base, im no expert and im sure you realise it by my name but does gaelic football do this? or only target cricketing nations
3. get cricket into the olympics,which’ll mean more cricket development outside of the norm and more Aussie rules friendly infrastructure
the smartest thing to do with AFL in australia, is the fact that it integrates fully into cricketing infrastructure.
January 7th 2010 @ 8:58pm
Michael C said | January 7th 2010 @ 8:58pm | Report comment
you’re right. No denying that, and probably explains the AFL’s general lack of enthusiasm to dive into the ‘international’ pool.
American football has Grid Iron,….Canadian Football remains invisible. Gaelic kinda works better than ‘Irish’, and as KB on here often states – - let’s just call it ‘Grooky’….annoying as KB can be,…….
cricket and footy work well hand in hand….just ask Cricket NSW.
The AFL has only really made an investment of note in South Africa and to a degree PNG and NZ now (along with HawthornFC). However, there seem some concerted efforts in China – - which might go hand in glove with the Chinese Govt having Govt departments aimed at making China competitive in a broader variety of sports – including cricket and to host a cricket world cup. In South Africa, the starting point was North-West province and sharing facilities with the cricket authorities……and the FIFA WC is another example that in Sth Africa, it’ll be Rugby that gains the most and cricket get’s nothing.
January 7th 2010 @ 9:36pm
rugbyfuture said | January 7th 2010 @ 9:36pm | Report comment
I know that china is also developing quite well in Rugby (real rugby that is, the international one) the afl could put their game hand in hand as an off season keep fit for cricketers if the chinese are going for cricket, which if they are will be a huge sport by the next few years
January 7th 2010 @ 9:59pm
Beast-A-Tron said | January 7th 2010 @ 9:59pm | Report comment
For international perhaps something like:
Premiership Football
or
Rules Football
This could be the formal name and depending on the region it can be colloquially shortened to ‘Football’ or ‘Footy’.
January 7th 2010 @ 10:14pm
Elbusto said | January 7th 2010 @ 10:14pm | Report comment
I think you might find that the countries you would be hoping to play your funny little game already have a game called ‘football’ they already play. You might have heard of it. Its played by 11 players on a rectangular field.
January 8th 2010 @ 3:16pm
Beast-A-Tron said | January 8th 2010 @ 3:16pm | Report comment
Many countries don’t call it ‘football’ (association) – that is an English word, they have their own native word for it. Additionally, most English majority speaking countries don’t call it ‘football’ (association) either – NZ, South Africa, Australia, USA, Canada, Ireland have different codes of football and tend to refer the aforementioned as ‘soccer’, with the exception of their die-hard soccer fans.
Last of all, ‘football’ is a generic word not a single sport name. This one is fairly obvious looking at history, but hard to swallow for some.
Any barriers to entry in other countries I would think unlikely in the name, but more to do with the game itself, finances and the existing sporting paradigm. Before arguing about ‘barriers to entry’, one should note it is an economic term and you may require a dictionary.
Don’t bother replying unless you use logic.
January 8th 2010 @ 3:21pm
Punter said | January 8th 2010 @ 3:21pm | Report comment
Very true Beast, mention football in Melbourne, you are talking about Australian Football, mention football in the US, they are talking about American football, mention football in Ireland, well they are confused which one they may ask, mention football in 99% of other countries you are talking about Football.
January 8th 2010 @ 3:24pm
Beast-A-Tron said | January 8th 2010 @ 3:24pm | Report comment
Well unless they are bilingual, if you mentioned “football” in those “99%” of other countries they shan’t have a foggiest idea what you are saying and even then, depending on the language they primarily speak, I’d daresay you’d still have quite a job to nail down that precise translation to soccer.
Say “football” in China or India and I doubt you’ll get much a response either. This “99%” is looking increasingly small.
PS. “well they are confused which one they may ask” – they would tell you Gaelic.
January 8th 2010 @ 3:28pm
Punter said | January 8th 2010 @ 3:28pm | Report comment
I think if you mentioned football in China & India, they will know what you are talking about.
If I follow your criteria, 99% of Indians wouldn’t know what I mean when I mention cricket. I think you will find this very incorrect.
January 8th 2010 @ 3:32pm
Beast-A-Tron said | January 8th 2010 @ 3:32pm | Report comment
“I think if you mentioned football in China & India, they will know what you are talking about.”
Not unless they spoke English and then they may think you refer to soccer or rugby, perhaps even american football. I wouldn’t speculate too much further seeing as these countries do not have a Eurocentric worldview
Edit: I’d concede India, they have a strong tradition of cricket and football (association), not to mention their British occupation.
January 8th 2010 @ 3:35pm
Punter said | January 8th 2010 @ 3:35pm | Report comment
So what do they call cricket in India, if they didn’t speak English?
January 8th 2010 @ 3:36pm
Beast-A-Tron said | January 8th 2010 @ 3:36pm | Report comment
They call it ‘cricket’, see above.
January 8th 2010 @ 3:37pm
Punter said | January 8th 2010 @ 3:37pm | Report comment
I think if you travelled throughout Asia, they would know the word football & they would not be talking about Rugby.
January 8th 2010 @ 3:41pm
Beast-A-Tron said | January 8th 2010 @ 3:41pm | Report comment
Not in Japan I hear, the direct japanese-english translation apparently means American Football. They commonly use a derivative of soccer. There’s another 100 mill or so people. The world is not uniform in sport.
January 8th 2010 @ 3:47pm
Punter said | January 8th 2010 @ 3:47pm | Report comment
‘The world is not uniform in sport’
Yes I agreed with you see my post above, but in 99% of countries, they know the meaning of the word of football as meaning the round ball kicked around by 11 players on each side.
I not saying any 1 code owns it’s name football, just what most countries understand it to be.
January 8th 2010 @ 3:48pm
Beast-A-Tron said | January 8th 2010 @ 3:48pm | Report comment
Well English isn’t the most spoken language in the world, you’ve got to remember that. Furthermore, most majority English speaking countries refer to football (association) as ‘soccer’, see above to rehash your memory.
Edit: What does all this semantic wrangling over language mean Punter? I’m trying to convey, that any growth of sport, changing of sporting paradigms will probably not be hampered by language, but by real things such as finances, infrastructure, sporting traditions already established (no sport operates in a vacuum).
To sum up: A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
January 8th 2010 @ 3:53pm
Punter said | January 8th 2010 @ 3:53pm | Report comment
I think some words are universal, not just a single language. Football is one of those.
Yes most English speaking country don’t call it football, can’t argue there. But then I don’t argue what is common knowledge.
January 8th 2010 @ 3:54pm
Beast-A-Tron said | January 8th 2010 @ 3:54pm | Report comment
If that is your contention fair enough… how do you define universal?
January 10th 2010 @ 9:05pm
Michael C said | January 10th 2010 @ 9:05pm | Report comment
99% of other countries need a more diverse sporting diet.
Poor b@stards!!!
January 8th 2010 @ 9:36am
Ken said | January 8th 2010 @ 9:36am | Report comment
League doesn’t need to ‘develop it’s own name’ since it’s name also comes from the PUBLIC school that it came from – it should be noted of course that the current rules of rugby league and rugby union pay only passing similarity to the original rules that Rugby school played in the 19th century. Denying that rugby league is any less of a descedant of the Rugby school than rugby union is faintly ridiculous.
More on topic, it would be a difficult for the AFL to change but something as simple as a name could really provide a stumbling block for Australian Football. Even domestically it already has minor wording issues especially with the soccer crowd (who, almost cultishly, decree they play in the ‘only’ true Australian Football competition) and even with us followers of the rugby codes (who are also playing Football in Australia). In any international situation the confusion would be amplified considerably (note the NFL player who earlier this year talked about how ‘crazy’ Australian Football was, he had been a rugby league game)
January 8th 2010 @ 9:39am
Foxy Loxy said | January 8th 2010 @ 9:39am | Report comment
If RF got his way no other game but RU would be entitled to play with a rugby shaped ball.
AFL with a soccer ball, now where have I seen that before?
January 8th 2010 @ 9:41am
Jay said | January 8th 2010 @ 9:41am | Report comment
AFL is also an offspring (or has its formation) from a rugby background.. and are you saying that the AFL played today is similar to the one originally started 150 years ago? The hand-pass, push in the back, definition of a tackle have changed over the year.
RL has changed, and for the better, in my opinion.. a similar movement is gathering pace in RU to return to a running game. If it improves the product, then why not?
Also, that crazy yank was Charles Barkely who was invited to a South Sydney game by Russell Crowe. He was just saying that someone would be crazy to play RL given it is such a tough and physical game, yet it pays poorly comparatively to the NFL.
January 8th 2010 @ 9:51am
Foxy Loxy said | January 8th 2010 @ 9:51am | Report comment
Yes, Tom Wills invented AFL in 1865 and he showed them in Melbourne how to play rugby. So it was first played as rugby and it changed over time.
January 8th 2010 @ 10:11am
Anthony said | January 8th 2010 @ 10:11am | Report comment
I admire your evangelical zeal about rugby, GFox!
January 8th 2010 @ 2:39pm
Redb said | January 8th 2010 @ 2:39pm | Report comment
Tom Wills and 3 others formulated the first ten rules of Australian football in 1859.
Earlier games were mix of ‘early’ rugby, soccer or better put a variety of English school rules football of the time.
January 8th 2010 @ 9:58am
rugbyfuture said | January 8th 2010 @ 9:58am | Report comment
private schools in britain are called public schools, get your facts right. Rugby school plays Rugby Union which they call Rugby Football, therefore verified by the namesake that there is direct lineal ancestry from Rugby Union back to Rugby League. Rugby League however splintered off and was foundered in yorkshire, quite far from warwickshire wher the rugby school is based.
but i agree with your statement on AFL which backs my statement.
foxy loxy, i never recall demanding aussie rules play with a round ball, i think aussie rules has its place and is a fun game to watch and play sometimes. AFL atleast changed its name to coincide with where it was developed.
January 8th 2010 @ 10:02am
Foxy Loxy said | January 8th 2010 @ 10:02am | Report comment
You said only RU was entitled to the rugby name. By that logic, no other code is entitled to anything that came from rugby school, including the ball.
Anyway, I don’t recall reading anywhere that the RFU was formed by rugby school. So as usual your logic is askew and anti rugby league.
January 8th 2010 @ 10:03am
Foxy Loxy said | January 8th 2010 @ 10:03am | Report comment
And the RFU was formed in London, which isn’t in Warwickshire either.
January 8th 2010 @ 12:46pm
Ken said | January 8th 2010 @ 12:46pm | Report comment
My point was that the current games we know as Rugby Union and Rugby League are both separate evolutions of the game played at Rugby school in the 19th century hence the names. Neither are the same game that was played at the time and the fact that Rugby school now plays Union rules (sounds right, I’ll take your word for it) isn’t really relevant.
I’m pretty sure on my facts but lemme check, yep according to wikipedia (not the most trusted source I know, but probably suitable here) Rugby school is in Britain, so a public school then…
January 8th 2010 @ 4:44pm
rugbyfuture said | January 8th 2010 @ 4:44pm | Report comment
alright, do you want me to point out “independant” school then? the same schools here that play Rugby, not league. the fact it is an australian website and therefore you would think, as in real life that etymological language and the spoken word would refer to the australian dictionary. rugby league in france is called thirteen man rugby whereas rugby is rugby. the same rugby football that was controlled by the IRFB when controlling bodies were being introduced. is now controlled by the IRB (same organisation dropped a word) before league was created, notice, no league or union reference. even league in its strongest printed media outlet, foxsports and the daily telegraph refer to rugby as rugby and league as league, not rugby union and rugby league.
even the RFU and the IRFB were smart enough to realign themselves together in the breakup of governing bodies.
the RFU, notice not rugby union, was formed from a heed out to rugby football clubs to streamline the rules that evolved from the Rugby school rules. and all the eventual clubs who formed out of this for Rugby league, would have either agreed to this pact to the RFU to play the Rugby football rules or were formed after by the want to play these rules.
the basis for my point on the name of rugby was that a name is an identifier, and someone steals a name to use it to their benefit then that is called fraud. the rugby school did not form the RFU but the etymological base for Rugby Football does come from them, and so it is most likely that since they play Rugby union, from day one, then they have a say in how their namesake is used.
January 8th 2010 @ 9:43pm
Foxy Loxy said | January 8th 2010 @ 9:43pm | Report comment
So now you’re accusing rugby league of fraud for having the audacity using the word rugby.
Funny how no one in the RFU or ARU has ever suggested this line of thinking, and they’ve had 100 years to do it.
I can see now that RU has been awaiting your arrival to lead the code out of the darkness.
You are truly the new leader of the RU new order.
January 14th 2010 @ 4:07pm
Siva Samoa said | January 14th 2010 @ 4:07pm | Report comment
rugby union is the only sport carrying the flag from its original origin of rugby school football. rugby league can go and get its own name . they gave up the rights to rugby when they change their sports and rules. the same as when american football gave up those rights. move on rugby league get your own name and its about tim,e you stop piggy pagg on rugby union for over 100 years.
January 14th 2010 @ 4:37pm
Norm said | January 14th 2010 @ 4:37pm | Report comment
You’re a waste of space Civy. It’s not a good idea to write while you’re intoxicated, it highlights your stupidity.
January 14th 2010 @ 4:41pm
Siva Samoa said | January 14th 2010 @ 4:41pm | Report comment
im not drunk but good to see your contrubution to the thread as always.
January 14th 2010 @ 4:42pm
Springs said | January 14th 2010 @ 4:42pm | Report comment
Rugby League has it’s own name. it’s called Rugby League.
January 14th 2010 @ 4:56pm
Norm said | January 14th 2010 @ 4:56pm | Report comment
You hang around here like a bad smell.
January 7th 2010 @ 6:41pm
JF said | January 7th 2010 @ 6:41pm | Report comment
Doesn’t Gaelic Football fill this mysterious void between rugby and soccer? It is played in Europe and the US and offers a compromise between the roughness of rugby and lack of contact in soccer, all within a rectangular field and using a more familiar shaped ball. If there is such a void – wouldn’t Gaelic Football fill it perfectly?
I just can’t see AFL developing any sort of following internationally, aside from the usual zealous ex-pats fulfilling their evangelical obligation to spread the message of the Sherrin to all, and the novelty factor that may interest some locals for a short period. I like AFL, I just can’t see that there is any international market, however niche, it would satisfy.
January 7th 2010 @ 8:51pm
Michael C said | January 7th 2010 @ 8:51pm | Report comment
JF -
yes and no,
yes in many respects and more leaning to the soccer side via the limited tackling,
and yes because it is played on rectangular pitches,
and no because it doesn’t offer anywhere in the world a professional ‘parent’ league
and that’s why to a degree I’ve half seriously previously on theRoar suggested that the GAA and AFL need to be careful what they wish for – because, International Rules – the pumped up version – could be the game that morph’s into the next big thing.
The logic supports this notion FAR more than any notion of Australian (Rules) Football taking on the world in any serious way – that’s without question,
which returns us to the position that most of us Aust Footy fans have on this international expansion including by non-Australians and that is that it’s very curious.
btw – ‘novelty’ factor is an under selling – - that there is a Danish League 20 odd years on with a majority Danes participating in it such that it has outlived the expat-Aussie foundations – and that there are a host of Danes with 100, 150 and 200 games experience………including national representation both locally (in hard faught contests v the Swedes/Brits and Irish especially) and on the other side of the world in Australia.
Perhaps the novelty-lure is more to represent their country……..and then, why the heck not….there’s at least a dozen average or out dated Olympic (Summer & Winter) sports that exist today probably only becuase of the national representation ‘novelty’.
January 8th 2010 @ 10:55am
Lazza said | January 8th 2010 @ 10:55am | Report comment
Soccer has plenty of contact and strength is an important factor in the game, just not the dominant factor. Ask anyone who’s played the game.
Soccer is not a ‘collision’ sport though and the focus of the game is always the ball not the man (i.e. skill). In ‘philosophical’ terms it’s the opposite of Rugby and that’s probably why the two sports co-exist very well around the world.
January 8th 2010 @ 11:47am
Dogz R Barkn said | January 8th 2010 @ 11:47am | Report comment
Fair call
January 8th 2010 @ 10:07am
Republican said | January 8th 2010 @ 10:07am | Report comment
I reckon this percieved branding handicap to Australian Footy is a nonsense and embarrassingly cringe induced.
‘Rugby’ is even more stilted and insular by name when considering it’s derivation.
‘Canadian Football’ struggles despite it being named as such. It is only American footy with one less player afterall and most people I know call Gridiron American Footy including Canadians who misappropriated the American game to little avail.
Gaelic Football has less global appeal than our game and League does not suffer at all from it’s branding as far as I can ascertain.
Soccer is known throughout the globe as a Sassenach game which has had absolute diddly effect on it’s global appeal. You could call Soccer Albion Rules and it would have naught effect on it’s following.
If our game is embraced by any O/S market it will be because of the game its self and NOT it’s branding or derivation thereof excepting NZ that is and that is hardly a reason to re brand the indigenous game.
Saffas, PNG and the like have absolutely no issues playing our game with great fervour at the same time referring to it as ‘Aussie Rules.’
Let us all just move on from this once and for all please.
Cheers
January 8th 2010 @ 2:01pm
Lazza said | January 8th 2010 @ 2:01pm | Report comment
It’s a local sport that appeals to sports fans in the southern States of Australia. History shows that local sports do not have much appeal beyond their own shores. I think it’s impossible to try and convert sports fans anywhere to a new sport – the time to do that was 100-150 years ago.
With every general rule there are exceptions. Football is one because it literally can offer the ‘world’ and that appeals to a lot of sports fans. To a lesser extent Rugby can also grow and become a bigger sport. The indigenous football codes around the world will never grow beyond their own nations as they have nothing to offer besides playing an exotic foreign sport.
January 8th 2010 @ 2:07pm
bever fever said | January 8th 2010 @ 2:07pm | Report comment
Get over yourself mate, every sport starts as a local sport.
If Australian football had the luxury of being spread by massive British immigration like soccer and rugby to all corners of the globe then things would be a lot different.
Soccer clubs as far apart As South America and Italy were started by English emmigrants up to 100 years ago, the vast majority of sports have not had this luxury.
January 8th 2010 @ 2:39pm
Lazza said | January 8th 2010 @ 2:39pm | Report comment
The Germans, French and others had no problem adopting this English sport but all the “English’ speaking colonies think its a ‘foreign’ sport. Go figure?
That’s my point – it was done 100 years ago and the sport now has momentum to keep growing. AFL only decided to go national in the 1990′s and is struggling to achieve that but you think that we can convert foreigners to the game now?
Even Ron Barrassi said it was a huge mistake not to put the Swans into Sydney in the 1930′s and that the sport may never become truly national as a result.
January 8th 2010 @ 2:43pm
Redb said | January 8th 2010 @ 2:43pm | Report comment
Lazza,
The evidence of the last ten years would suggest you are very wrong. Improvement in travel and communications has started to globalise sports in varying degrees.
Australian football like the rugby codes and soccer is finding new markets. Australian football has the lowest base and therefore the most difficult task.
Redb
January 8th 2010 @ 2:49pm
Lazza said | January 8th 2010 @ 2:49pm | Report comment
The only sports benefiting from that are the huge international sports. A lot of young people in Australia who knew nothing about Soccer are now discovering how big it is and want to be part of it. English soccer clubs are now rich beyond their wildest dreams because all the soccer fans around the world can now watch the EPL.
AFL has not found any new markets – it just has a few amateurs playing the sport in those nations. The overseas AFL TV ratings are zero. I saw that on Fox Sports when they interviewed the AFL media department.
Where’s the real evidence that it’s found new markets?
January 8th 2010 @ 2:51pm
Redb said | January 8th 2010 @ 2:51pm | Report comment
Suggest you do some research. South Africa for one.
January 10th 2010 @ 9:45am
captain nemo said | January 10th 2010 @ 9:45am | Report comment
Red, whats this South Africa stuff?? My research is I actually go to South Africa about 4 or 5 times a year. I share the office with saffas all the time and they have never heard of what you guys are claiming. was in Jo burg 3 weeks ago mate and no offence red but AFL is a well kept secret. maybe its like oz kick in NSW/QLD where kids play it to get out of class when the evangalists come to the school spruiking gifts or in South Africas case, a feed and a chance for an aussie visa.
January 10th 2010 @ 10:16am
Foxy Loxy said | January 10th 2010 @ 10:16am | Report comment
captain nemo its more hyperbole from the AFL. O’Loughlin was on 2GB yesterday spruiking numbers in SA as over 20,000. That’s right, 20,000!
It’s b.s., but if you keep saying something enough times, eventually people believe it.
January 12th 2010 @ 6:49pm
Redb said | January 12th 2010 @ 6:49pm | Report comment
20,000 playing Aust footy in Sth Africa. It is marketed as Footywild and is played in several provinces.
Who really cares whether you beleive it or not. The knockers dont want to beleive, hands over ears not listening not listening
Why are you even posting you have no interest and just want to troll.
January 13th 2010 @ 8:02pm
Elbusto said | January 13th 2010 @ 8:02pm | Report comment
Red if that means trawling through AFL spin and propaganda then if its all the same to you I will give it a miss. I will leave you to read it and spread it here endlessly – as you do!
January 8th 2010 @ 8:16pm
Forgetmenot said | January 8th 2010 @ 8:16pm | Report comment
Globalisation provides a huge opportunity to make football an international sport.
Sites like youtube mean that the rules of the game, and footage can be watched by anyone with internet access.
I originally thought that globalisation would benefit soccer a lot more than football. However over the last few months i have come to the realisation that both sports will be helped.
More Australians will watch soccer, but around the world, more and more people will be watching a larger variety of sports and football will one of them.
On Facebook alone i keep in touch with International non-Australian friends and chat to them about the football.
Soccer is the first of many sports to go truly global. Basketball will follow, as will cricket, and most other sports will grow in appeal as people seek out a sport more suitable for them.
January 8th 2010 @ 3:02pm
JF said | January 8th 2010 @ 3:02pm | Report comment
“I think it’s impossible to try and convert sports fans anywhere to a new sport – the time to do that was 100-150 years ago”
I think that is very true Lazza, with all the money American Football has, it cannot even crack new markets. RL in England hasn’t been able to get London in over 100yrs, there are many other examples of similar cases. Football is a different case altogether, it has a massive advantage in expansion due to its major global presence. I think it also has a great deal to do with the fact that it can be played on any surface, requires almost zero outlay for equipment, is extremely easy to understand and being non-contact (in comparison to other football codes)helps.
January 8th 2010 @ 3:08pm
Redb said | January 8th 2010 @ 3:08pm | Report comment
It’s already happening whether people like Lazza like it or not.
It does not mean Aust football will be bigger than other football codes, but in its own way it is already creating niches and some countries like Sth Africa and starting to grow beyond expats, really grow.
If the AFL can double its existing player base in 10-15 years from the huge international pool that is worth a try. Only need a small fraction and its an expotential increase.
For the first ever the AFL is actually directing funds in targetted areas.
Redb
January 8th 2010 @ 8:19pm
Forgetmenot said | January 8th 2010 @ 8:19pm | Report comment
I think a big increase in exposure of the world to football will come when TV switches from signals to internet. People will be able to watch what they want, and they will experiment with a lot more interests.
January 12th 2010 @ 10:56am
Simmo said | January 12th 2010 @ 10:56am | Report comment
True. But as much as it’s an opportunity for a niche interest, every other niche interest in the world is competing via the same medium.
On the plus side, getting seen has become easier via the net. But the downside is that retaining that interest is even harder than it used to be. Or to put it another way, attention spans for fads, new ideas and cultural memes is getting progressively shorter.
January 12th 2010 @ 11:24am
Michael C said | January 12th 2010 @ 11:24am | Report comment
That’s why it’s so important for the AFL to act now – and decisively.
That action – of now bringing in not just 1, but 2 (just wait for the steak knives!!!) International sides into the Aust Div 2 National junior championships – - that’s a massive step forward to more engaging and connecting with the interest that has grown.
WIthout something like this, there’d be far less optimism for a consolidation/continuation of ‘growth’,
because then, it’d be pretty well as you say, potentially just a ‘fad’ and we’d be left to look back in 20 years and wonder ‘what if??’.
(at least the game – as a code of football – is very distinct to soccer and the Rugby/Grid Iron games).
January 8th 2010 @ 5:22pm
Michael C said | January 8th 2010 @ 5:22pm | Report comment
The obvious limitation for Grid Iron in the ‘British Empire’ markets is that it’s a game too similar to the Rugby codes of which there are 2 in place (Union and League). Money probably doesn’t come into it. There’s simply not sufficient product differentiation.
The point about lack of growth of RL in England is indicative of what happened for most football codes – what they had gained or lost by just before WWI would be a fair limit during the next 40 years at very least…..for obvious reasons. There were other priorities.
Seeing you write about soccer can be played on any surface is ironic when every other week we hear gripes about the surface in Kuwait or at Etihad stadium (Docklands) or the surface in Brisbane…….btw – - off side sure as heck isn’t easy to understand (or,….the application of it!!!!!).
btw – conversion isn’t so much the issue, because – that’s at the ‘elite professional’ viewing/broadcasting level that is. But, getting Aust Footy onto school carriculums in the UK is a major step to getting a sustainable local core of players who become the first generation of kids who grew up aware of the game and may just have the chance to head to Australia. It helps create a new generation of locally grown coaches/umpires etc……but, not in any language does it ‘convert’ the masses or create an economically viable viewing audience.
January 12th 2010 @ 9:58pm
Jannerboyuk said | January 12th 2010 @ 9:58pm | Report comment
American Football is a massive sport in many different countries. There is a world outside of the anglo-saffer-france axis. For example mexico: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/hispanicheritage2008/news/story?id=3620057