- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
State of Origin 2011 result (AAP Image/Dave Hunt)
No other Australian sporting event highlights the continued existence of the Barassi Line like State of Origin. While rugby league’s three act showpiece grips New South Wales (NSW) and Queensland to the point of hysteria, south of the border it remains a curiosity watched by ambivalent neutrals.
But herein lies the problem for the NRL: its premier annual event is dependent on the code continuing to beat exclusively in NSW and Queensland.
If the NRL chooses to expand in non-tradition markets rather than in the heartland, it will only erode the significance of State of Origin as players emerge from other states.
And with a generation of young Victorians likely to emerge over the coming decade, exposed to the game through the Melbourne Storm’s success, New South Wales and Queensland won’t have exclusive ownership of the codes’s talent.
As the AFL found in the final years of its own State of Origin, selling the representative game is harder when the code’s stars are ineligible because they “originate” from the wrong states. Despite the fabled history of the Victoria (Big V) versus South Australia Origin clashes, the annual contests couldn’t survive up against the increased professionalism and scope of the AFL season, which featured mini State of Origins each weekend.
As the NRL’s tentacles spread and players’ states of origin become less clear, the meaning behind State of Origin won’t have the same cachet as it once did. That’s not to say rugby league’s State of Origin will go the way of the AFL’s – to the sinbin – but it will change the dynamics of the event and perhaps force a move away from the state of origin eligibility. Already the game has seen messy situations in which a player’s state of origin can be questioned by queries around birthplace, where they started playing the game, where the were schooled etc.
One has to wonder whether this concern and need to protect the integrity of State of Origin will be raised when the Independent Commission decides on NRL expansion (or relocation). Will a second team in Brisbane and the revival of Central Coast seem more attractive as they keep the league’s bases in the Queensland and NSW catchment areas, rather than create new bases in far flung places such as Perth and Adelaide?
It’s a fascinating quandary the NRL faces. Obviously national expansion would be preferred if it can be done successfully. But there are no guarantees. The NRL doesn’t have the financial clout or national representation of the AFL.
Committing to the likes of South and West Australia would require an immense investment into developing the grassroots. But it would give greater meaning to the ‘N’ (National) in NRL, with all the benefits that would afford in terms of television deals and their reach, sponsorship and the like.
But by doing so they would be condemning the State of Origin concept; breeding talent outside the NSW and Queensland catchment.
While State of Origin and the NSW versus Queensland rivalry is bigger and stronger than any player(s), its selling point and attraction will lessen if the next Billy Slaters, Darren Lockyers and Johnathan Thurstons originate from South Australia, West Australia and Victoria.
Representative league footy, be it State of Origin, Indigenous All Stars, City versus Country and Kangaroos Tests, provides the NRL with a great selling point and differentiation from the AFL.
And in a funny way State of Origin is the trade-off for the NRL not being a truly national competition, just as canning State of Origin was the trade-off for the AFL’s expansion and growth in the nineties.
Will the NRL ever make that sacrifice for league expansion? It seems unlikely at present. But how many Aussie Rules fans would have predicted the demise of State of Origin at the height of state battles in the 1980s?
Follow Adrian on twitter @AdrianMusolino