Rugby league has been closely grafted onto the ANZAC legend. Yet how can anyone justify the use of the term ‘ANZAC’ for the annual Australia vs New Zealand contest?
It is an insult to most of those who made the ultimate sacrifice at Gallipoli.
The stark statistics for World War I are horrific. Tens of millions died, including 11,000 Australian and New Zealand soldiers at Gallipoli.
Yet I wonder if The Roar‘s readers can name one rugby league player playing in Australasia’s premier competition – the professional New South Wales championship, later renamed the NRL – at the beginning of World War I who died at Gallipoli?
I have issued this challenge previously – and have searched through honour boards of the New South Wales Rugby League and some of its clubs, online.
It is an interesting – and revealing – question.
World War I actually began on July 28, 1914. The ANZAC force landed at Gallipoli on April 25, 1915. So there was plenty of time for men to volunteer for war service.
Remember – these men would have had to be playing in the Sydney comp when war broke out, not before; and they had to have been a sad statistic of Gallipoli, not later battles elsewhere.
League’s recent move to play its ANZAC Test in Turkey in 2015 and have the players attend the Dawn Service at Gallipoli – for the centenary of the landing – was scuttled by the Turkish government. Do we know why?
A little ‘digging’ into history unearths the real reason this ‘ANZAC Test’ name is so remarkably inappropriate.
Firstly, league was the only code in Australia not to suspend its top competitions during the war.
Union suspended its competitions from the outset. Even the semi-professional or professional Melbourne-based Australian Rules game and its clubs did a far more patriotic job of supporting the war effort than did the rugby league.
Things just don’t add up here. The ‘Roll of Honour’ of the New South Wales rugby league (which was the ‘national’ body at the time, before the formation of the Australian Rugby League), for first-grade players or officials killed in action during the whole of World War I, contains only 10 names – and one of those is a non-player.
Compare that with some of the true ‘ANZACs’ of Australian sporting codes.
So let’s look at rugby union. In 1915, a Sydney newspaper reported that 197 out of 220 of the city’s regular first-grade rugby union players were on active service. That is 90 per cent.
According to England’s Daily Telegraph, an estimated 5000 Australian rugby union players went on active service during the war.
This figure represents about 98 percent of the playing numbers in the game, outside the schools, in 1914. Thousands did not return.
The simple, underlying reason for the vast difference in the numbers of men who served is that the NSWRL – to quote well-known Australian league historian and author Sean Fagan on RL1908.com – made no effort to persuade anyone to enlist.
Sure, the NSWRL made donations towards the war effort. But it was only five percent of the gate takings when 35,000 people watched the inter-state game in 1915 – and it was seen as a device to ensure the authorities did not try to close their game down.
In July, 1915, the Labor Premier of New South Wales, Mr WA Holman, exhorted these people thus: “Your comrades at Gallipoli are calling you. This is not the time for football and tennis matches… it is serious. Show that you realise this by enlisting at once!”
Australian historian Michael McKernan, a leading authority on World War I, in a 1979 essay titled Sport, War and Society, wrote that according to official records, about 75% of the unmarried rugby league players somehow managed to avoid serving during the war.
There are lots of social, historical and political studies that give reasons why this new working-class sport did not support the war as others did. And of course, there were league players who individually did enlist and go to war and died for their country.
But regardless of how or when the ‘rugby war’ was won by the league code in Australia, the outcome of World War I was that league had a thriving game in 1919, whereas union had to try to start again. In Queensland and Victoria it took many years just to re-establish the club game.
It is therefore ludicrous indeed for the sport of rugby league, almost 100 years after the First War, to seek to benefit from the warm feelings and friendly rivalry generated by the more modern concept of ‘the ANZACs’ by its use of the term.
To provide a little more background, the term ‘the ANZAC Test’ was controversial from the outset of the match in 1997, but not necessarily for the underlying major reason.
Some just saw it as ‘unseemly’ in comparing soldiers with professional sportsmen.
But the Super League (which had come up with the concept during its battle with the ARL) got around this by making a large donation to the Australian RSL.
Bruce Ruxton, the RSL head, featured in commercials for the inaugural match.
However, you may not know the term ‘ANZAC’ is legally protected in Australia by an act of Parliament; the Protection of Word ‘ANZAC’ Regulations (under the War Precautions Act Repeal Act 1920). It requires permission from the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs for its use in commercial events.
Such permission was granted for the event for the first three years (1997-99). But it does not appear to have been officially available from that point. Why?
From 2004, the Australian Rugby League called it the Bundaberg Rum League Test, after the principal sponsor.
Intriguingly, from 1997-99, the winner of this Test was awarded the ANZAC Trophy – which depicted an Australian slouch hat and New Zealand ‘lemon-squeezer’ hat.
But from 2004, when the rum people took over, the Bill Kelly Memorial Trophy was at stake. Kelly was a New Zealand league player in the early 20th century.
It remains to be seen which country will host the match for the centennial of Gallipoli next year. Apparently, the New Zealand RL holds hopes. But surely the game will be played on Australian soil.
Let’s hope the game’s organisers will by then have come up with at least one name (of a player from the 1914 season) who died at Gallipoli.
After all, despite all the hype, they aren’t making any more war heroes, are they?
Editor’s note: The NRL does not use the term ‘ANZAC’ in any of their communications. We have contacted the author to clarify assertions made in this piece.
Storm Boy
Guest
Holden Racing Team will continue tribute tradition with special ANZAC livery for Pukekohe V8s http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/motor-sport/holden-racing-team-will-continue-tribute-tradition-with-special-anzac-livery-for-pukekohe-v8s/story-fnibc0rk-1226886043865
Storm Boy
Guest
ARU talking up a Anzac team for next year for a 3 game series and the likely massive $ to be made. It's RU so no one will complain about the use of Anzacs to make money. http://www.news.com.au/sport/rugby/australia-and-new-zealand-could-become-allied-forces-in-anzac-xv-to-tame-lions-in-brisbane/story-fndptke0-1226878204064
Storm Boy
Guest
Rugby union will be playing on Anzac Day this year. Also read the ARU wanted the Wallabies to play the All Blacks at ANZ on Anzac Day 2014 or 2015 I can't remember which or maybe both. Why? To make money and cash in on 100 years since the start of WW1.
Glenn Innes
Guest
I also might add I don't think we should play on Good Friday either..what is wrong with a society setting aside a handful of days each year where nothing much happens - half a century ago every Sunday was like that. I guess it is because the real religion of our age unadulterated capatilism can't stand the thought of even one single day of not making money.
Glenn Innes
Guest
Storm Boy - Good Friday is an enttirely different question it is a Religous day of reflection for those who believe that Jesus Christ was the son of god and that his sacrafice on the cross absolves believers of the baggage of the original sin. An important date for believers no doubt but very different to ANZAC day which is (or at least should be) a national day of mourning for those who were killed or wounded in batttles we knpw for fact really did happen. Surely we can last one single day without bread and circus and reflect on the above. Both AFL and Rugby League play on the day and have their token minute of silence before they start counting the money. I think it is bad taste you don't ...we agree not to agree.
The Voice of Reason
Guest
"The so called Voice Of Reason provides one lonely artiticle by a newspaper hack and expects us to take that as serious historical research." (a) I posted more than one article from 1915. (b) Why "hack"? (c) I wrote a comment, not a PhD thesis. Serious historical research, indeed. Notwithstanding anything you might have said, it would be self-evident that the author did not properly research this article. If you are going to undermine me for pointing this out by using weasel words, so be it.
The Voice of Reason
Guest
This lack of patriotism, if one were to accept the premise of the article (which I don't), should feature prominently. I await the issuing of a clarification by the editorial staff of this site. Or perhaps a retraction from the author.
Storm Boy
Guest
What about Good Friday? Should the NRL not be allowed to play that day either?
Sir K1W1ana
Guest
I might add the Rugby Union match was played on Lemnos Island during the Gallipoli campaign. Lemnos Island was used as a recuperation point for the ANZACs. If you need any further references and there are a large number, refer to the NZ site Papers Past where there are articles on the leagues position during the War. Out of the First World War eminated the most prestigious trophy in NZ Secondary School Rugby, the Moascar Cup. This cup was organised by the NZ and Australian Forces serving in Egypt towards the end of the War and involved five Australian, one NZ team and four British teams. The NZ Mounted Rifles won the tournament and returned to NZ presenting the trophy to one of the top schools in NZ for competition. One of the greatest heroes of Gallipoli was Lt Freyberg who received a DSO for his swim to divert Turkish Forces. Later received VC as well as four more awards of the DSO. As Officer Commanding NZ Division during WW2 he was responsible for ensuring rugby was played in Britain when the 2nd Echelon NZEF was serving during the Battle of Britain and later in the Middle East, not only among battalions but against the Welsh, British Regiments, South African Brigade and the Australians. This time there were goal-posts erected. And fields were bulldozed into position.
The High Shot
Roar Pro
No, I took a quote from the original article that seems to undermine its whole premise. Hence the quotation marks.
The High Shot
Roar Pro
Not my quote mate.
Sir K1W1ana
Guest
Could you please name them. I would like to know who these Australian league players were that enlisted during the Great War. I know for instance in the Canterbury region of NZ, eight league players enlisted in 1915. All served in France. They realised like so many others the threat of world domination by the Germans and of course their stakes in the world of industrialisation and what they stood to lose should Britain fall. Family ties were also a significant factor.
Glenn Innes
Guest
Cross Coder - Not entirely true,,, he does provide statistics showing the majority of Sydney Rugby League players avoided service in World War one.Also war is not always futile - pacifism is for fools but World War one was futile...indeed worse than that. The HighShot informes us their were many reasons for this and many studies giving reasons why - but then provides zero references.The so called Voice Of Reason provides one lonely artiticle by a newspaper hack and expects us to take that as serious historical research. I know nothing about the subject but my guess is the reasons were purely commecial (although no doubt they fiound ways to spin it keeping the morale of those at home high by providing entertaiment, keeping young men fit in case they were needed etc etc. Personally I have no moral problem with the fact Rugby League played on in fact if our game resisted the moronic jingoism that led to the human slaughter that was the "great war" then more power to it but I doubt it's motives were particularly wholesome.
Storm Boy
Guest
Not hard to find out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shute_Shield#Shute_Shield_Era says Shute shield played through World War 2 and Vietnam.
The Voice of Reason
Guest
I note that the author did not respond to my unearthing of contemporaneous sources that undermine the point, such as it was, that he was trying to make. I now await immediate editorial action regarding this article, which is inflammatory at best, and which, at worst, attempts to hijack the memory of our war dead to make a cheap "code war" point. Surely the editors of this site would not hide behind the Alan Jones-style defence of "this does not purport to be journalism" to disseminate inflammatory material as clickbait. I don't, for a moment, think that they would be that irresponsible. Or perhaps you think differently?
The Voice of Reason
Guest
What on earth do you mean? That to play a sporting competition in wartime is treasonous? I have no doubt that during World War 2, when Australia was more directly under threat, that the Shute Shield, for example, was suspended. Actions speak louder than words, after all. Or is this kind of patriotism only limited to World War 1? What about Vietnam? Should the Super 12/14/15/etc have been suspended while we had troops in Afghanistan? Pray tell.
Aucks Warriors
Guest
so at the age of 18, 19 0r 25 this rugby union men who signed up all had massive money in their bank accounts to look after their families and kids. What a load of pukaka.
Cathar Treize
Roar Guru
Denier, apologist
greg trilby
Guest
Actions speak louder than words though...
greg trilby
Guest
Tigranes - don't bring that up - we'll be hearing about the French, WW11 and Rugby League non stop now!