Related coverage
AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou has warned that the league will not take a back step to soccer if Australia hosts the World Cup.
In a speech at Thursday night’s official season launch, Demetriou has made it clear that the AFL will not let soccer dictate terms if the bid to host the cup is successful.
Earlier this week, Demetriou told a meeting with Australia’s other football codes and the federal government that Etihad Stadium was off limits for the World Cup bid.
“Over the coming years we’ll also have to confront a changing sporting landscape in Australia, we have to be ready for the possibility of the World Cup,” he said.
“The AFL has always said we are happy to accommodate major sporting events, we have a track record to prove it.
“But we do not – and will not – accept second place for Australian football.
“We welcome other sports and major events, but we won’t allow seven million fans to be deprived of Australia’s indigenous game, nor put at risk the jobs of so many associated with our game.”
Demetriou also said the league was not obsessed with how much money it will earn from the upcoming television rights agreement, but was more concerned with what it can do with the expected financial bonanza.
The league will probably earn at least $1 billion from the next five-year agreement, which will start in 2012.
“This new agreement, when it’s finalised, will underpin the future of the competition and be invested back into the game and the generations to come,” Demetriou said.
“This is a critical point that sometimes gets overlooked by those fascinated by dollar signs.
“As a community organisation, the AFL is not driven by the money generated by broadcast rights.
“What drives us is the impact this revenue can have when re-invested in our clubs, supporters, facilities,volunteers and better career paths and opportunities to attract the best athletes.”
On Wednesday, Demetriou raised the possibility of a top-nine finals format once the league expands to an 18-team competition.
The top eight currently make the finals, but the league is conducting a wide-ranging review of the competition ahead of the entry of Gold Coast and Greater Western Sydney by 2012.
“When we have 18 teams, are we going to have 22 rounds? Are we going to have 23 or 24?,” Demetriou told Channel Ten.
“What will the bye look like next year? Do we have a final eight or final nine? Are the finals four weeks or five weeks? We don’t know.
“We would be remiss if we were not looking at all options.
“We have a top eight with 16 teams and that’s 50 per cent of the teams – 18 teams, a top nine is 50 per cent of the teams, that’s one way of looking at it.”
Demetriou also defended his hefty $1.8 million salary, which the AFL revealed on Tuesday.
“It has a bonus component where I have to achieve certain requirements – if I don’t … I don’t earn that,” he said.
“I think that’s fair, ultimately I’m judged by the remuneration committee and I can’t ask for a fairer process than that.”
© AAP 2012Recommend 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.
- Explore:
- AFL, Andrew Demetriou, football, Football World Cup
March 19th 2010 @ 10:04am
Michael C said | March 19th 2010 @ 10:04am | Report comment
For anyone interested in Demetriou’s FULL SPEECH at last nights AFL season launch –
here it is:
(full transcript).
Please note the comments in question comes pretty deep into his portion of his speech where he does a little crystal ball gazing of the NEXT decade – - given it’s 2010, he put it this way Before I talk about some of these, let’s fast forward 10 years and consider how our game might look in 2020..
So, well along this thread of the speech he get’s to mentioning that there might be a World Cup, and there might.
Big deal.
What are the anti AFL and pro soccer folk on about complaining about this now?
Or have they just been sucked in by the sensationalist reporting of it by soccer friendly Fairfax press????
March 19th 2010 @ 10:20am
TheMagnificent11 said | March 19th 2010 @ 10:20am | Report comment
It’s interesting that he says the Etihad Stadium is off limits. However, I wonder if the Etihad owners would see it the same way if FIFA and the FFA were offering more money than the AFL to use it. I don’t think the AFL have negotiated rights to use it all the way up to 2022. Money talks and I think FFA will compensate the AFL for losses in revenue if bid is won. This is all just a lot of chest beating so that they can extract the maximum compensation possible.
March 19th 2010 @ 10:30am
Michael C said | March 19th 2010 @ 10:30am | Report comment
firstly though – the AFL has first rights of refusal for 25 years at Docklands stadium 2000-2024 (and from 2025 assume outright ownership of the venue, the freehold and the management).
Secondly – with the FIFA ‘control’ of the WC venues – Docklands would stand to lose money if it hosted FIFA WC matches instead of it’s regular AFL quota.
Now – would FIFA be willing to offer bucket loads of cash???,…….I’m not too sure that anyone has suggested on any front that FIFA would be ‘flexible’ in anyway.
It’d have to come from the FFA, which means it would have to come from Government as a form of compensation,
but, without Govt legislative intervention to force the AFL to vacate – then it’d all come down to the buckets of cash for A. Docklands management to seek to break the agreement that it’s business is built upon for maybe half a dozen games over a few weeks for a once off only…….not going to happen.
The ‘carrot’ has to be offered to the AFL – - – but, the AFL is contractually obliged to provide X amount of matches and Y,000′s of attendees to Docklands annually – - – so, at present, even if the AFL said, yes, please, feel free FFA and FIFA, go play. The AFL would still be liable to compensate Docklands for lost revenues.
March 19th 2010 @ 10:35am
TheMagnificent11 said | March 19th 2010 @ 10:35am | Report comment
Well I didn’t know that. Also just read that Ben Buckley said that the FFA were not including Docklands as part of it bid. However, my point on the chest beating still stands. The AFL and NRL are putting up resistance even when they know there are workable solutions because they want to get more compensation. Nothing wrong with that, I would do the same if I was in their position.
March 19th 2010 @ 10:55am
Michael C said | March 19th 2010 @ 10:55am | Report comment
the AFL though has all along stated in principle support.
But, so too, since that position was adopted back in late 2008 (when it was widely reported that rival codes supported the bid……pending the detail!!!) that the AFL intended to retain Docklands and to play on. The FFA stated a blurry 2 choices back then, and upon Oct 2009 opting to present to the world Docklands as a key venue – - – that set in motion the AFL ‘resistance’…..not immediately mind you.
The AFL were annoyed no doubt – and when they came across the secret plan to rectangularise the MCG and take it out of action for a minimum 16 weeks (the AFL had offered 10 weeks) – - the AFL were justifiably concerned because,
clearly – the FFA were making plans that were ignoring the needs of the AFL to run a season.
And if the AFL allowed that to progress without speaking up, and allowed it to progress such that the Fed Govt came on board with that understood as the position,
then the AFL would’ve shot themselves in the foot.
Let alone that the FFA has yet to be able to clarify the position around host city exclusivity – - because they can’t. It’s FIFA’s call that one.
This is the main problem for BOTH the AFL and NRL. THey can negotiate all they like with the FFA…….but it’s not the FFA that makes the call.
re ‘compensation’ – - main point there is that you need to leverage ‘costs’ vs ‘benefits’.
If the AFL and NRL just vacate and do nothing – they take the major cost burden, and the FFA – for zero outlay – stand to reap a massive windfall.
There’s an obvioius balancing process to ensure that the people who take the greatest burden of the event are suitably compensated/rewarded/paid – - – whatever word you want to use.
If that’s via cash, or venues??
And the reality is – for such a number of large venues – - on present standards – the cost justification is not being drivein by soccer (most certainly not soccer stand alone in Australia). The FIFA WC is only 4 weeks and returns stuff all to the host venue other than ‘prestige’ – because they become FIFA venues and FIFA runs the advertising/corporate hosting etc.
So, it there’s required a big spend – - that spend has to be justified by viable on going usage – and in Adelaide and Perth especially, that’s tied to the AFL and – - the dilemme here is that the uncertainty of the FIFA WC bid is actually holding up and complicating planning around projects in both Adelaide and Perth (in Perth Subiaco is way too small – the AFL needs a 60K venue, and in Adelaide, even the Adelaide Oval project is mostly based on funds that would be diverted from an AAMI stadium upgrade and transit link).
So – - even there – the AFL ‘rewards’ have to real, i.e. rewards they wouldn’t otherwise be seeing anyway. You can’t just re-wrap something and hand it to the AFL and claim it’s their gift from the WC when they were getting it anyway. Well – that’s how I see it anyway. The AFL really has to play hard ball to get something worthwhile – - otherwise, why should they play ball at all??
March 19th 2010 @ 11:23am
TheMagnificent11 said | March 19th 2010 @ 11:23am | Report comment
The NRL and AFL are not going to vacate for nothing and I’m pretty sure the FFA never assumed that. They will receive financial compensation. All this is just getting blown way out of proportion in the media.
The WC may only run for 4 weeks and the NRL and AFL are likely be put of for 10 weeks because FIFA requires all WC stadia to be event free leading into the WC. The WC will be using 10 stadiums. The rest of the stadiums around the country can still be used by the other sports. Yes they will loose money because most of the best stadiums are off limits. So the FFA will compensate them for these loss (and then some). They’ll be able to afford it due revenues they stand to receive from the WC. Even the federal government will help with compensation because they win on the economic benefit for the nation.
Not only that, so many of the training facilities around the country will be upgraded to meet WC standards. Guess who will get to use these after the WC? Australia sporting clubs (most of which will NRL and AFL teams).
There are so many long term benefits for the whole country, not just soccer. The only thing that soccer gains that the other football codes does not gain is publicity and prestige.
March 19th 2010 @ 11:49am
Michael C said | March 19th 2010 @ 11:49am | Report comment
It is interesting though -
because, a lot of people have gone on about GErmany Organising committee having a 135 million Euros profit…..but that was before tax and before distributions back to FIFA – - at the end of which they were left with around 50-60 million.
If it’s left to the FFA to sign commitments to send $25AUD million here and $15AUD million there etc etc – - – they have to be pretty damn careful not to cut away too much or they risk being left with very little cash even in a best case scenario (as you’d have to agree that Germany vs Australia could so easily be a financial chalk and cheese).
The Fed Govt will have enough to deal with the costs (predicted, actual, blown out!!!) – - and won’t want to be committed to lavishing large buckets of cash……..and thus far had only really spoken of the ‘pay off’ via improved facilities.
It’s really only been very recently that the actual word ‘compensation’ has been used and used with an acknowledgement that it be necessary – - so an example of the language having changed.
The other example is if Ben Buckley has admitted to Etihad being off the table – - because, even last week when John Brumby went public re Geelong – it was clear that the FFA was still resistant and the issue was still being lobbied……………astounding that the FFA were so steadfastly digging their heels in on Etihad?? (as it would appear.).
Isn’t it that 10 stadia get nominated and FIFA choose the 8 they want….but at what notice??
There’s no doubt that some in the soccer fraternity would want Soccer to claim the golden goose – - a whole heap of dedicated soccer stadia and all improved soccer training venues etc etc. Pragmatically – it’ll be something less than that. However, it remains to be seen just what impact the 36 ‘training bases’ plus the 8-10 match venues plus I gather each match venue requires 2 stand alone ‘warm up’ venues as well……..it remains to be seen how many of these will be locking AFL and NRL out of either match or training venues………
The main thing is – the less it is central to the current property of soccer – the more the costs run the risk of ballooning.
btw – even if saying ‘publicity and prestige’ is all that soccer might gain that the other codes don’t – - – funny thing is that we keep hearing just how powerful and valuable these unquantifiable and intangible elements are for the nation as a whole.
Perhaps part of it for the AFL is they A. don’t want to NOT be playing, B. don’t want to be excluded from the cities, and C. don’t want the prestiage ‘hit’ of being kicked out of a fine venue such as Etihad……..because, prestige wise, you need to remember too that the AFL head offices are within the broader structure of the Docklands Stadium complex (as is channel 7). So, prestige wise, the AFL ain’t never, ever – gonna let themselves get evicted from thier own offices and for the FFA to so desperately seek it is really an offensive act (and Ben Buckley would know – whicm either shows him to be a real rrrr’s-hole or to be getting rail roaded by the impatient and desperate Frank Lowy).
March 19th 2010 @ 12:36pm
TheMagnificent11 said | March 19th 2010 @ 12:36pm | Report comment
The current federal government is quite keen to get the WC here. They committed 45 million for just the bid. That’s just the bid, it doesn’t include money for improving/building stadiums or improving infrastructure (they have to give the state governments extra money for that because most of the stadiums and public transport infrastructure in this country are state government owned). Having invested that sort of money in the bid, I’m pretty sure they’d be willing to spend a few extra million as compensation to other sports to protect their investment. Is this a waste of money? Well that’s a matter of opinion.
Furthermore, I don’t the FFA care a whole lot about making huge profits from hosting the WC. They are more about getting publicity for soccer. It’s the biggest participation sport in the land but kids who grow up playing soccer still end up playing, watching and spending their money on the other football codes and cricket. To the FFA, the WC is about trying to get the Australian public more interested in soccer. So when push comes to shove, they’ll probably be willing to give up some of those profits to other sports to ensure they get the WC.
March 19th 2010 @ 12:48pm
Dogz R Barkn said | March 19th 2010 @ 12:48pm | Report comment
That’s a reasonable post – and you are right that when discussion comes to a legacy for the game – just getting the WC here is a massive legacy in its own right.
But you have fallen down in talking about compensation of a few million dollars.
As MC has said, the German FA ended up with about 60 million euross – in all honestly, that figure represents a small percentage of what the AFL would be seeking in compensation alone (without even factoring in stadium redevelopments).
March 19th 2010 @ 1:20pm
TheMagnificent11 said | March 19th 2010 @ 1:20pm | Report comment
I didn’t intend the term “a few million” to mean one or two, or even less than ten. My point was that the government has already spent 45 million on the bid. If they win the bid, they’ll invest hundreds of million more. In the grand scheme of things, tens of millions paid by the FFA and government to other sports almost pales into insignificance.
March 19th 2010 @ 2:25pm
Michael C said | March 19th 2010 @ 2:25pm | Report comment
btw – just so you know – I’ve read the subsequent posts – - don’t severely disagree or otherwise – I’ve said pretty well enough and I think we’re all pretty well on the same page.
cheers.
March 19th 2010 @ 2:50pm
Dogz R Barkn said | March 19th 2010 @ 2:50pm | Report comment
Tens of millions may not be enough, it might be hundreds of millions, and the question then becomes: why should it be the taxpayer that pays for that sort of compensation?
Shouldn’t the event itself produce sufficient revenue to cover the compensation package?
This is where we get unstuck – as big as the event is, it will not produce sufficient revenue to cover the compensation requirements of the NRL and the AFL.
That raises some very serious questions.
March 19th 2010 @ 2:51pm
Black Diamonds said | March 19th 2010 @ 2:51pm | Report comment
It will be hundreds of millions all up.
Hundreds.
March 19th 2010 @ 4:15pm
Rob said | March 19th 2010 @ 4:15pm | Report comment
The “secret plan” to rectangularise the MCG always makes me laugh. It was clearly just FFA exploring all options and apparently was disregarded as soon as the numbers came in on it. Rather than being part of some machiavellian conspiracy it just shows they are being comprehensive.
Compensation is fair and reasonable if and when its due. but 100′s of millions as people keep saying…. they can build new stadia for that.
In the end their is no possible chance of us being awarded a WC if it means AFL is the prime benefactor either in cash terms or legacy. Legacy alone, in the form of football specific stadia, is the only reason FIFA might choose us over the US. Do quick google on US stadia and check out the facilities already there, all of which are empty in Jun,July.
March 19th 2010 @ 10:31am
Dogz R Barkn said | March 19th 2010 @ 10:31am | Report comment
In fact the AFL has rights on Etihad right up to 2025, when it then reverts to AFL ownership.
The Etihad management has already made it crystal clear that they are not interested in hosting WC matches.
Why? For the exact point you are trying to make in reverse – money does talk – and Etihad will get far more out of the AFL over a 10 week period than it will ever get out of FIFA’s WC, hosting a few group games.
March 19th 2010 @ 3:25pm
Lazza said | March 19th 2010 @ 3:25pm | Report comment
It’s just too much trouble to host the World’s biggest sporting event. Rebecca Wilson and Noel Gallagher (UK press) will be vindicated. We Aussies are just useless at any truly global sport and we had better stick to niche sports or at best just play against a few commonwealth nations.
If we then avoid things like Pay TV and the Internet we can happily pretend that we are ‘World’ champions and slag off other more popular sports as being ‘boring’. Our kids won’t have the burden of representing their country or testing themselves against the worlds best. They can also enjoy their holidays without being bothered since half the country won’t know who they are.
March 19th 2010 @ 3:30pm
Punter said | March 19th 2010 @ 3:30pm | Report comment
Watch it Lazza, you are going to get Bever going on about McDonalds again.
March 19th 2010 @ 3:34pm
Timmypig said | March 19th 2010 @ 3:34pm | Report comment
Lazza do you have links or direct quotes? Us Aussies ‘useless at truly global sport’ ? ? ? ?
Other than football (association football I mean) what are the other ‘truly global’ sports?
Rugby – 2 world cups;
Cricket – hardly ‘just useless’, try ‘the team to beat for the last 20 years’;
Hockey – repeated successes globally;
Basketball – OK so we’re not the world’s best, but it’s hardly global, is it?
Swimming – consistent top 4 finishes (ege medal counts, records) in worlds, Olympics, etc
ummmmm ….
Darts?
March 19th 2010 @ 3:45pm
MV Dave said | March 19th 2010 @ 3:45pm | Report comment
Rugby is not a truly global sport nor is Cricket (both mainly Commonwealth with a few others tagged on). Whilst Hockey is played around the world it is hardly dominant in any country…
The truly global sports are Football…daylight…Tennis…Basketball…Golf (increasingly)…track and field and maybe F1.
So out of those sports Oz is no where near world champs although we compete well in each.
So would have to agree with Lazza…
March 19th 2010 @ 3:50pm
Punter said | March 19th 2010 @ 3:50pm | Report comment
Hard to disagree here. Though I do agree with Hockey also being global sport but they are certainly not a high profile sport.
March 19th 2010 @ 4:00pm
Beast-A-Tron said | March 19th 2010 @ 4:00pm | Report comment
“Rugby is not a truly global sport nor is Cricket…”
So, by what measure is a sport ‘global’? What metric do you use?
March 19th 2010 @ 4:10pm
MV Dave said | March 19th 2010 @ 4:10pm | Report comment
Not trying to start a code war here just stating facts…Rugby has little pro presence in North America, Central America and limited pro activity in Sth America (mainly Argentina), little presence (if any) in Middle East, the sub continent, large parts of Asia, much of continental Europe (except France) and most of Africa. It has a strong following in Sth Africa, Oceania and the British Isles.
Cricket is big in the sub continent and has strong following in some Commonwealth coutries but thats about it.
You can apply any of the sports measures including world wide attendance, TV deals, participation etc., pro leagues etc
March 19th 2010 @ 4:16pm
Al said | March 19th 2010 @ 4:16pm | Report comment
Team sports it’s Association Football, daylight, then basketball, then a few light years between basketball and the next sport.
March 19th 2010 @ 10:21pm
elbusto said | March 19th 2010 @ 10:21pm | Report comment
you had better tell the 1000 Rugby Clubs in North America they have no presence – they may be surprised.
March 20th 2010 @ 1:52pm
Beast-A-Tron said | March 20th 2010 @ 1:52pm | Report comment
You still haven’t defined a global sport metric.
“Not trying to start a code war here just stating facts…”
The facts according to whom…?
I seem to recall asking a similar question about this before, along the lines of defining ‘global’ and what criteria is required to be met (to obtain that ‘global’ title).
The question remains unanswered, contender always run away too.
‘You can apply any of the sports measures including world wide attendance, TV deals, participation etc., pro leagues etc”
Care to draw a line in the sand then? Quit being so lazy and choose your own “sports measures”; that is exactly the original question that was posed to you, which you have conveniently sidestepped around.
There is obviously (in your mind) some measure that defines some sports as global and others… not. What is that measure??
March 19th 2010 @ 4:24pm
Al said | March 19th 2010 @ 4:24pm | Report comment
Outside the US, basketball is massive in pretty much all of continental Europe (especially Italy, Greece and Spain and to a lesser extent, France and Germany), is probably sub-saharan Africa’s second most popular sport, is big in some parts of the Middle East (Second most popular team sports by far in Israel and Iran), is massive in China, is the Phillipines national sport and probably on par if not even more popular than football there and would be second to association football in Argentina and Brazil for team sports. Basketball is the only sport that comes close to football in terms of being “global”.
March 19th 2010 @ 4:36pm
B.C Queenslander said | March 19th 2010 @ 4:36pm | Report comment
Could add,
Squash
Golf
surfing
motogp
formula 1
Netball
Cycling
Boxing
Triathalon
Tennis
Yeah Lazza, spot on, we Aussies are usless at global sports.
March 21st 2010 @ 6:42pm
Al said | March 21st 2010 @ 6:42pm | Report comment
Surfing? If that’s a sport then so is rollerblading.
Formula 1? Webber wins one race and all of a sudden aussies are formula one champs left, right and centre!
Tennis? Australian tennis hasn’t been in such a crap state for years.
Squash, netball, triathlon? please
Aussie are only good at being big fish in small ponds.
March 19th 2010 @ 6:09pm
Jeb said | March 19th 2010 @ 6:09pm | Report comment
“Basketball – OK so we’re not the world’s best, but it’s hardly global, is it?”
and you post on sports websites! ha, ha
March 19th 2010 @ 3:39pm
keeper11 said | March 19th 2010 @ 3:39pm | Report comment
Actually thats the overiding feeling one gets from the bubble world of mainstream domestic australian sports & their commercial media sponsors… ( one and the same really )
They’re not just conservative…… but outright xenophobic and reactionary..
Their message to the outside world : ” just p%ss off will ya ”
.
March 19th 2010 @ 4:35pm
bever fever said | March 19th 2010 @ 4:35pm | Report comment
I think their message is, we know what we like , dont tell us we have to like it because many people around the world like it.
Maccas analogy works fine in this instance.
March 20th 2010 @ 6:39am
Millster said | March 20th 2010 @ 6:39am | Report comment
The problem with maccas analogy is that it deliberately picks a product of low quality. If asked, most people around the world also like (and wish for) Ferraris…
March 19th 2010 @ 9:58pm
Millster said | March 19th 2010 @ 9:58pm | Report comment
Good post mate.
Bubble world is perfectly put.
March 19th 2010 @ 4:03pm
Republican said | March 19th 2010 @ 4:03pm | Report comment
Lazza
We just won the World Cup Hockey mate.
We are contenders in the so called ‘World Game’ or is that the only sport that qualifies as global in your opinion?
We have dominated Surfing for decades, our World Junior Team winning for the fifth consecutive time this year in Auckland.
We have significant World Cup Union spoils despite the code deriving poor status. In fact we are better credentialed than the mighty All Blacks in this respect, much to their despair.
Our Netball Team has won it’s fair share of World Cups.
Our Triathaletes dominate the World circuit.
Our Cyclists, especially track, are amongst the best in the world.
Our swimming status had been second only to the US for sometime and is currently at number four in the world.
For a country lacking altitude and serious cold we won two gold medals at the Winter Olympics in Vancouver this year which is no mean feat.
i could go on of course and recall a day when our Tennis players were also the envy of the world but really your prominant chip towards Australian Footy has by now been well established Lazza, however your sweeping statements do your argument a great diservice, suffice to say, I reckon you can do better than resorting to that sort of hyperbole cob.
March 19th 2010 @ 4:23pm
bever fever said | March 19th 2010 @ 4:23pm | Report comment
Lazza said ………. We Aussies are just useless at any truly global sport.
Please name all these truly global sports Lazza.
I believe you summed it up quite nicely RP, i will see Lazza’s prominent chip RP and raise a cringe.
March 19th 2010 @ 4:32pm
Jimmy said | March 19th 2010 @ 4:32pm | Report comment
Why do you have to say something derogatory about New Zealanders with every post you make Republican, can you not write anything without posting some provocative or derogatory statement to Kiwis.
I’m getting tired of your BS and I am Australian, this is not a place for you to voice your racist and intolerant views towards those from the other side of the ditch.
March 19th 2010 @ 10:04pm
Millster said | March 19th 2010 @ 10:04pm | Report comment
Republican – fair comeback to Lazza, who Ithikn went a bit far in his comment.
I understand what underlies his grief though – what miffs many of us though is that it is not all these sports and pursuits where Australia really take on the world and come out pretty good that we hype and promote and celebrate. Rather its a couple of irrelevent hic suburban codes that absorb an inordinate amount of ‘social bandwidth’ – and of course they have the luxury of writing their own hype as it is never possible for that to be tested against the truth of global competition.
I just wish we’d focus on and celebrate those things in which we participate in the world and come up good… or even try valiantly… a bit more. Thats what deserves the credit and the attention. But maybe we’re lacking too much in confidence as a nation… I don’t know…
March 20th 2010 @ 8:09am
BigAl said | March 20th 2010 @ 8:09am | Report comment
We show interest in things that interest us . . . . you know it makes sense !
You are definately correct on one thing though – … you don’t know…!
March 22nd 2010 @ 9:37am
Michael C said | March 22nd 2010 @ 9:37am | Report comment
Millster -
No doubt you are trying to refer to the AFL and NRL as irrelevent hic suburban codes that absorb an inordinate amount of ’social bandwidth’
Mate – hardly irrelevent.
More than suburban,
bigger than vast majority of the worlds soccer leagues,
‘social bandwith’ – - glad you mentioned it – - the NRL and AFL are so much more able to reflect the society in which they are based because they are ‘localised’ so far more than any soccer league possibly can be. Without which – we’d probably spend all our time looking at Aussie’s plying the US college basketball/baseball scene and the Europ club soccer scene and then – - the domestic stuff really would just be an irrelevent sporting backwater……..for now, that domain is home to the A-League and the NBL.
March 22nd 2010 @ 9:49am
captain nemo said | March 22nd 2010 @ 9:49am | Report comment
Steady on Micheal, your remarks regarding the A-league and NBL being irrelevant globals in a sporting backwater is the pot calling the kettle black. YES, football and basketball in Australia will never reach the dizzy heights of NBA or College and European football standards but even in the most minascure way, they make a contribution. You guys are a big fish, in a sub section of a pond in an isolated backwater, where you can only dream of what occasionally an aussie basketballer/ footballer/ rugby/baseballer can achieve and experience.
March 19th 2010 @ 4:15pm
Dogz R Barkn said | March 19th 2010 @ 4:15pm | Report comment
How did this thread degenerate into a few soccer zealots having a go at what the majority of Australians prefer to watch on a regular basis?
Soccer has its niche in Australia – so just be happy!
March 19th 2010 @ 4:16pm
Punter said | March 19th 2010 @ 4:16pm | Report comment
Hockey, yes Global, but hardle high profile, should be I do like Hockey.
Surfing, give me a break.
Netball, a commonwealth sport.
Rugby, despite their lack of WC success, New Zealand enter most WCs as the favourite, a country of 3 million in a team sport.
Triatheletes, an developed country sport
Track cyclist, again an developed country sport
Swimming, yes we do well, but definately not as widely competed as Track & field & very little profile outside of Australia.
Now Winter Olympics a great example of a event that is not truly global due to neccessity of altitude & cold weather.
March 20th 2010 @ 2:08pm
Beast-A-Tron said | March 20th 2010 @ 2:08pm | Report comment
“Surfing, give me a break.”
Translation: ‘I’m too lazy (or too stupid) to think of a real criticism.’
March 20th 2010 @ 2:20pm
bever fever said | March 20th 2010 @ 2:20pm | Report comment
Surfers crave a good break !!.
Soccer monoculture, is what these guys crave.
Diversity is not in their vocabulary.
March 19th 2010 @ 4:23pm
Republican said | March 19th 2010 @ 4:23pm | Report comment
Punter
What exactly qualifies as a global sport in your language mate? Please enlighten me.
Your criteria of ‘global’ seems to limit you to ??. Seriously, this is splitting hairs on your part surely.
March 19th 2010 @ 4:31pm
Dogz R Barkn said | March 19th 2010 @ 4:31pm | Report comment
I think the argument goes something like this: soccer is the most popular sport in the world, from North Korea to Nicaragua to Nigeria.
So if these countries enjoy it, so too should all Australians enjoy it over and above their currently preferred national codes.
March 19th 2010 @ 4:25pm
Dogz R Barkn said | March 19th 2010 @ 4:25pm | Report comment
This reminds me of the Thanksgiving episode on Everybody Loves Raymond, where Raymond’s dad goes to sit down next to Raymond’s insufferable father-in-law.
Raymond’s dad is wanting to enjoy a game of “football”, but there’s soccer on, and he says: What’s this??
And the father-in-law says: This is soccer. You see, this is what the rest of the world calls “football”, not the game we play here in the US. Venezuela is playing Nicaragua.
The dad grabs the remote and changes the channel, saying something like: Yeh, and they eat cats in there rest of the world too!
March 19th 2010 @ 10:06pm
Millster said | March 19th 2010 @ 10:06pm | Report comment
You don’t think that may have been a satirical dig at the parochial insularity and closed-mindedness of the american middle classes?… perhaps?….
March 20th 2010 @ 10:18am
BigAl said | March 20th 2010 @ 10:18am | Report comment
True ! – they were merely getting a point of humour out of something which you take so, SO seriously.
March 20th 2010 @ 2:23pm
bever fever said | March 20th 2010 @ 2:23pm | Report comment
Pretty big words there Millster, think it works both ways though.
March 20th 2010 @ 2:21pm
bever fever said | March 20th 2010 @ 2:21pm | Report comment
Simpsons soccer one is better.
March 19th 2010 @ 4:35pm
Timmypig said | March 19th 2010 @ 4:35pm | Report comment
Hey Team I didn’t mean my post to start a code war either!
My point is apart from football (soccer) – what ‘truly global’ sports are there? I would argue none. My post was more to coax out the original arguments from Rebecca Wilson and Noel Gallagher.
- – - NORMAL PROGRAMMING RESUMES – - -
Move on folks – nothing to see here!
March 20th 2010 @ 2:03pm
Beast-A-Tron said | March 20th 2010 @ 2:03pm | Report comment
Define global.
March 19th 2010 @ 5:40pm
Mister Football said | March 19th 2010 @ 5:40pm | Report comment
Good on to AD for sticking up for our game – that’s his job, that’s what he gets paid big bucks to do – if anyone wants to interrupt the AFL season, for whatever reason, then they better cough up a bit of coin.
Or just hold the WC somewhere a bit more conducive – simple – and the taxpayer will save billions of dollars.