Why fans need their own national lobby group

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.

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.

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'.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

no probs SSA, you've certainly got the group perspective here today..

exactly my point above Fred. Let's see how they go before passing judgement..

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

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.

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.

Probably fair to say this isn't quite the response SSA were hoping to receive from their first exposure via their Official Media Partner....

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 :)

- . . . 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 ?

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, 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

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 ....