AFLPA rejects Costello comments

THE ANZAC GAME ALTHOUGH STARTED BY C'WOOD//ESSENDON,SHOULD BE SPREAD OVER ALL TEAMS.THOSE WHO SAY THEY SHOULD KEEP IT,AS THEY STARTED IT,SHOULD REMEMBER WHO WERE THE FIRST TEAMS TO BE IN THE VFL AS IT WAS THEN. GEELONG[CATS] ARE ONE. FAIIR GO FOR ALL TO SHARE..

Every time I hear Costello, Kennett or one of the other ex politicos expounding on some moral issue the old joke immediately pops into my head. How do you know when a politician is lying ? His/her lips move ! Except now, because they do it in print, we don't even get that warning.

agreed.

actually it is the point - because Costello was attacking the motives of sports personality altruism, ranging from people like Ponting, S.Waugh and Warne who go above and beyond (but, perhaps publicly) down to the rookie AFL players who have a contractual obligation. I don't recall Costello seeking to leave anyone out of the gap between those bookends!!! He's baked every single one of 'em. I'm with you - - there's too many generalisations. WE should be glad that young players into the system are compelled to make appearances that see them retain a healthy respect for a large component of the support base -- the kids. Were they not doing it, the people would demand it. WE should likewise be glad that true altruistic philanthropy occurs, both publicly and privately and yet, Costello's sunk the boot in to all of it!!!! Go figure. Given that he started with cricket, including current and past national captains - and worked his way to the AFL, I suggest that EVERY other sport in the country can assume being included by inference. I'm sure the vast majority of NRL, HAL, AFL and ARU players and cricketers etc who attend a school would be behaving exceptionally well when there.

Although saying that Costello does have one point though. Criticising the whole concept of sportsman being role models When society get outrage due to the behaviour of a sportsman. I wonder what's more disturbing. Sportsman behaving badly or society looking up to sportsman for moral guidance.

People acting out of self-interest? what's the world coming to

I hate cynicism towards people who participate in charity I honestly couldn't care less whether people are charitable for altruistic reasons or not. Really that is an issue between them and their conscience/karma/god or whatever people believe. I expect self interest from everyone and I think self interest is normal and neutral behaviour and as long as the self interest doesn't hurt anyone then people shouldn't be criticised for that because that is normal behaviour. However if people do anything that benefit other people then that is unexpected as anything that helps other people goes beyond standard expectation of citizens in this country no matter how small it is. So if people do help people out of self interest and promotion of the brand, I really couldn't care less because they are helping people anyway and society needs more of that. When most people do act in self interest and selfishness, I guarantee you that they wouldn't benefit society in that process and perhaps the opposite. Selfishness that results in positive society benefits should be praise. I have a saying that if people help other people or participate in charity for selfish reasons then society needs more selfish people

OFS, that's not the point. I think everyone accepts that there are some players who go above and beyond and do an enormous amoujnt of good. But the question has to be asked, how many AFL players would turn up to your average run of the mill Auskick session if it wasn't a condition of their playing contract? Arbib is guilty of the same generalisations as Costello - he says all players do it out of a desire to make the community a better place. Do all, or even most, players think that way when they get to appearance number 10 or 15 out fo their comulsory 21? I seriously doubt it. Let's see how the CBA negotiations go around this topic.

Mark Arbib's response to Peter Costello here. A good read, and the 'Ladder' organisation is featured by Arbib as a shining example of the generally unheard of good things that our sports stars and sporting bodies might be involved in without most people having the slightest idea.

Exactly, Costello talks about the AFL being more interested in brand than substance, then the AFLPA and the AFL go into top gear to protect their brand. Talk about an irony bypass. Gawd you carry on Redb, you really think the school visits aren't about promoting the game to the yoof and projecting a caring image?

Jason - I'm not too sure how many players in the category of the contractually obliged school visits would claim themselves to be philanthropic - - - that term was used by Costello. However, Costello used such a broad brush that he first baked and questioned the altruistic integrity of people such as current and retired Aust cricket captains who go out of their way (certainly NOT contractual obligation). Costello therefore includes everyone inbetween. In the AFL sense, there are some relatively well known examples, guys like Harry O'Brien, Michael Long, Matty Richardson, Chris Judd and others who have generally very quietly engaged in true philanthropy. For the most part - without fanfair and without any notion of 'branding'. ANd Costello is bringing all of them into question. That's what's grossly unfair about his attack.

ONe gains the impression that the athletes 'own' foundations are to help provide a clarity and legal certainty around involvement. The Warne foundation website speaks of helping out over 70 charities. For Shane Warne private citizen to just say yes all the time might be far more prone to exploitation of Shane Warne than it is for a legal frame work of the Shane Warne foundation to operate through. That and - for promotion of big ticket events to raise funds - the legal framework of the 'foundation' operating on behalf of whichever charity(s) would provide greater certainty for those considering involvement. For example Russell Crowe, whilst he doesn't have his own 'foundation', he is a (1st XI patron) supporter of Steve Waughs. I would seriously doubt that there would be much in the way of 'salaries' around most these 'foundations'. Perhaps costs. But, does that stop you donating to the Red Cross, or World Vision? The benefits of publicity and social networking generated by working with and through high profile 'foundations' you'd imagine would off-set most of any such costs anyway? I dunno - - it just seems odd that in the eyes of some that you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. What does Costello propose people do otheriwse? His message is very scrambled - because, he goes from picking on individual sports people who go out of their way to help, and then picks on the school visits which to a degree are contractual obligation. He's smashed everyone there. He just sounds like a grumpy old man!!!! I dunno. It looks seriously like an attention grab and smells of being a first draft article that he ran out of time to fine tune (or check facts).

Exactly; more news at 11.

As I said here: Philanthropy as part of a contractual duty is not philanthropy. The majority of the time it’s an obligation of the player by the club and league ‘working on their brand’, looking for good PR.

'why not lend their image and the same amount of their time to an established charity?' Precisely. The more donated dollars get divided amongst charities and research bodies, the less research and charitable acts that can be undertaken.

I'm actually against the establishment of extra foundations, simply because of how much of the money that gets donated is used to fund overheads and salaries (including salaries of relatives of the athletes). There is no question that the use of some athletes' images raises a lot of money and that some of this does some good for sections of the community. But if they really thought about how to maximise the amount they could generate for the needy, why not lend their image and the same amount of their time to an established charity?

Costello started by whacking Liz and Warnie - and I tend to agree - their public twitter self promotion made a farce of it all. However, for Costello to then line up Ponting, Warne and Steve Waugh (but he forgot Glen McGrath) for running charitable foundations - and questioning the integrity of their altruism - that was going very low. To then drag in the footballers was astounding - as, most of the time we hear people are complaining they live in a sporting bubble. That Costello brings up the St Kilda issue again is cheap - given the players were cleared of any wrong doing at the school visit. There's nothing I've seen to genuinely make people question players (of any code) visiting schools. However, what Costello has catered for is the right wing demographic who read the Age and listen to Steve Price. What Costello neglects to mention is that people should fear sending their kids to school or church (and certainly a religious school) more so, because of all the (proven) examples of teachers and priests taking advantage of their positions. I do just wonder if someone like Michael Long could ever look Costello in the face again after this rant.

Good points. I think the AFLPA see communtity visits for 19-21 year olds in particular as part of their own personal development, that there is a world outside the footballers bubble life. Some maybe reluctant and some maybe better off not attending but for the majority I would imagine it's a rewarding experience for them and the communtity. My daughter still remembers 3 Melb players (Robertson, Uze & Woewodin) visting her school, she loved it despite being a Geelong fan. Absolute gentlemen who were very generous with their time. There are countless stories like this that came up on Melb radio yesterday. Most right thinking people know Costello was perhaps more interested in getting his column read than being fair & balanced.

It's a bit rich for the AFLPA to suggest that the players' comunity activities (which I believe is overwhelmingly postive, for the record) is motivated by purely bejnevolent purposes. They are contractually obliged to do 21 half-day appearances every year under the terms of the Collective bargaining Agreement. If there was no such obligation, how many would you have turning up to schools and comunity events? It's in the AFLPA's interests to be talking up the "value" of player appearances in the community when they're in the midst of negotiations for a bigger slice of the pie from the AFL. I didn't take Costello's comments as applying to all AFL players, merely highlighting (in a poorly worded way) that there is a big risk your daughter's school could be visited by a player who was not an appropriate role model. The simple fact is that every AFL player has an obligation to do these school/community appearances and not all of them are the best role models for kids. Even the players themselves seem to accept that. Why should parents/kids have to run the gauntlet on this? if the AFL/AFLPA believe the majority of their players are suitable role models, it should be incumbent on them to weed out those who are not - and perhaps pay them less of the AFL pie as a result.

"AFLPA rejects Costello comments" In other shock news today: "Pope declares catholicism to be his favourite religion"