- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
Todd Carney scores a try for the Roosters during the NRL Round 3, Bulldogs v Roosters, ANZ Stadium, Sydney, Sunday, March 27, 2011. (AAP Image/Action Photographics/Renee McKay)
The news that Sydney Roosters player Anthony Watts had been charged with domestic assault on the weekend was quickly, and predictably, followed by a chorus of people putting the boot into rugby league. The general sentiment was along the lines of ‘bloody league players in trouble again’.
Considering the list of off-field incidents involving rugby league players over the years, if you wanted to argue or debate that general sentiment, I would fear that your position would be as close to indefensible as possible.
If you feel like jogging your memory on said incidents, you’ll find that the topic has its own Wikipedia page. And whilst Wikipedia isn’t the most reliable source of accurate information, it does suggest that the quantity of incidents is so great that it has entered pop culture.
So fear not rugby league bashers, I won’t be naive enough to try and counter than general sentiment. I simply can’t.
However, what I would like to point out is that on the same day that Watts was in the news for all the wrong reasons, actor Nicholas Cage also found himself in the headlines. In fact, he was arrested for domestic violence himself. And yet the chorus decrying ALL actors as thugs, criminals and reprobates was suspiciously quiet.
My point is a simple one, and one I’m sure that rugby league players would dearly love me to make: not all rugby league players are criminals. In fact, the overwhelmingly vast majority of them aren’t. And yet they are continuously stained with the reputation of being law-breakers or grubs because of the idiotic actions of a very small minority.
They must be getting very sick of it. I know I am.
Whether fans want to admit it or not, the game has an image problem, directly born out of the constant off-field incidents. This image problem means I have often heard people proclaim, “I would never let my daughter go out with a league player.”
Whilst this is just anecdotal evidence, it’s a fairly common statement, and can lead one to no other conclusion other than rugby league’s image is in a very sad state.
The game gives the impression that it bounces from controversy to controversy, and is somewhat untouchable – that no matter the size of the scandal, the game still goes from strength to strength. Such an attitude is not just arrogant, it’s also misguided. If you think these controversies don’t have an accumulative negative effect, you’re wrong.
Long-time Sydney Roosters sponsor, Samsung, dumped the club in 2009 after a series of off-field incidents left them no choice but to dissociate their brand with rugby league.
When Joel Monaghan was released by the Canberra Raiders last year, it was the club sponsors calling for him to be sacked, after a picture of him engaging in a sexual act with a dog was released to the public.
Likewise, Camp Quality was extremely reluctant to be associated with the Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs after the clubs numerous public relations disasters.
These examples indicate that the off-field incidents can have a drastic financial effect on the game. And in a competitive sporting landscape, no code in Australia is in a position to be losing sponsors.
But it’s not just the money that can dry up. A 60 Minutes report last year highlighted the battle between AFL and rugby league for junior participation numbers in Sydney. Some parents were interviewed and they admitted that the relatively clean-cut image of the AFL held greater appeal for them, and normally led to them persuading their kids not to choose rugby league.
You could therefore make the assumption that the negative perception of rugby league players could have an adverse effect on junior playing numbers. And whilst it’s hard to prove, it could potentially also have an effect on crowd numbers and TV ratings.
Again, I stress the importance of the word ‘perception’. Forget for a minute the reality, because the AFL has had more than its fair share of scandals and off-field incidents over the years. In fact, the disparity in incidents is not that great between the two codes. Yet the perception is that rugby league player behaviour is worse.
Again, the reality doesn’t matter – only the perception – and the commonly held perception of rugby league is that its players are often in some form of trouble. But don’t feel too sorry for the game, because if you revisit the list of off-field incidents, there is more than enough evidence to give credence to that perception.
There are those who will defend rugby league and say that rugby league players are merely a representation of the wider community, and that drugs, sexual offences, gambling, alcohol related incidents, etc, are societal issues, and not confined to rugby league players.
That’s true, but what is also true is that rugby league is a professional sport, run by a professional organisation (NRL) and organisations (the clubs). It’s a business. And any professional business whose ‘brand’ is continuously tarnished by its employees needs to act swiftly and strongly. Especially if these incidents are having an effect on sponsorship, participation figures, crowd numbers, TV ratings, etc.
And even if they’re not, wouldn’t we all prefer to be talking about the game?
Whilst the NRL and the clubs are easy targets for criticism, the players themselves need to accept more accountability. Rugby league players need to understand that once they sign on the dotted line of an NRL contract, certain responsibilities come with it, including being a role model.
Playing sport for a living is a privilege; a privilege they need to respect more. No one argues that rugby league players make sacrifices. But it seems some of them aren’t making enough.
Furthermore, instead of officials always having to take post-incident action, it would be nice if the players took greater control of the situation themselves. And I don’t just mean not getting drunk in the first place, although that would be an obvious place to start.
I’m talking about collective ownership of the issue, much like the Sydney Swans famous ‘Bloods Code’ (or ‘no dickheads policy’). When was the last time a Swans player got into any sort of off-field trouble? Could it be that their self-administered Code has something to do with it?
At present, it almost seems like rugby league is biting the hand that feeds it. The players need to understand that the small minority that bring the game into disrepute are damaging the reputations of all players.
And if they continue to alienate sponsors and fans, they’re actually risking their revenue streams.
If their reputation being sullied doesn’t motivate them to act for the good of the game and take a stand against misbehaving players, perhaps the notion of less cash will.