Time to get politics out of sport

I couldn't agree more. I have a few friends in England who have recently had to abandon their football clubs due to their support of 'LGBT pride', as if the incessant and pervasive gambling advertising wasn't enough.

Sorry but this article will make no difference in sport being removed from politics. I don't think FIFA/IOC have tuned into reading this article.

He hasn't been following at all, his opinions are invalid and typical of someone who only reads headlines! Richard H is exactly that...

How about the bit where she played a mixed doubles semi final at the Australian open this year. Which bit not true....the whole bit muppet. And you and the author have achieved what again?

Unashamedly. What's the H short for? Head I'm assuming? Would be a fitting epithet

No - he cherry-picked the 'best' thing Court said, the 'worst' responses (most of which were due to the real out there nasty stuff Court said that he didn't mention, such as there being too many lesbians in tennis & trans children being the devil) - and then made a cowardly attack on Sam Stosur before slinking off into anonymity

LOL. Have you actually been following this at all? The press picked it up because....she wrote a letter to the press!! Surprise!! She did involve her status as a sportswoman, because in that first letter she wrote: "As you will know I have represented Australia many times and have the proud record of never losing a tennis match while playing for my country". It's at the start of the letter dude. The second paragraph.

Margaret Court simply wrote a "letter to the editor" expressing her opinions, as a church-going member. Surely she is entitled to do that! It was the press who picked up that it was THE Margaret Court, surely not her fault and she at NO TIME attempted to involve her status a sportswoman to push her barrow. The media lives on this stuff. With no ethics!

Did the author mention anything about lesbians in tennis?

Which bit isn't true?

Well, Paul D we know which side you are batting for!!

Tell me about it. These articles are inevitably written by straight white blokes who get a sniff of what every other minority has had to wade through for centuries and suddenly it's unbearable to their senses.

"Social engineering"? Ummm it's called equality mate. Margaret Court was the one using her sporting pedigree as tennis player to try to give authority to her comments. Other athletes responded.

Politics to e removed from sport - not going to happen in my lifetime or ever. I think the author opinions are well intentioned (his contention boils down to one thing - lets make the focus of sport – well sport) but his views incredibly naive, and misguided. (To remove any untended bias from my comment, I am quite proud to admit that I am an ardent supporter marriage equality. And I don’t want to restrict this authors opinions on the topic, he can have his opinions and I will for one make sure that he has the right to say them. Other comments have focused on this, and I wont cover it because other people will). What I will suggest however is professional sport CANNOT remove itself from social engineering and the main reason isnt about focusing on the sport, or whether an athlete should not have an opinion either way. No. The main reason that professional sport cannot extract itself from social commentary is because of-------- money. As long as there is money involved in professional sport, there will always be politics involved regardless of whether us, the sports viewer, like it or not. Politics in its purest form is all about inflicting someone opinions onto the wider community. And at the end of the day, if a brand wants to promote their product, they going to use this infliction by paying someone to use their popularity to promote their position. Without this money, an athlete becomes amateur in status. To become a professional they must adhere to the social norms of the people paying for the right for that service. And that extends not only to sponsorship, but also to persons participating in the end product, including us the fans. A good example of this is when any AFL/NRL player is suspended for bringing the game into ‘disrepute’. In many instances, what that player has done is not in contravention of law, but rather, in contravention of what the product owner (IE the AFL or NRL) has dictated to as a social norm (via a legally binding contract between the provider, team and player). This dictation is a form of politics, imposing the content’s owners belief that an athlete should abide what it considers appropriate forms of behaviour. They do so because, us the fans as a stakeholder and sponsor of the NRL and AFL, has dictated that social norms need to be applied to the people who supply their product. That’s politics. Politics cannot be removed from sport. The money wont let it happen.

She is entitled to have that opinion. Also the owners of Margaret Court are allowed to call it Winnie the Pooh arena if they like, especially if they don't share the same opinion's as Mrs Court's. Or is freedom of opinion only one way?

"In the case of Stosur, with her track record at the Australian Open, that should not create a problem for her. Plus, there are numerous outside courts for those wishing to dodge centre court". What a piece of gutless and nasty writing!

Fair point

Geez, where to start with this article? Alan Joyce is free to say what he likes about same sex marriage. As a prominent Australian, he's using his position to speak out for what he thinks is right. His statements should be held up to the light and assessed for their merits. If the shareholders of QANTAS see this as being deleterious to the business of running an airline, then they have their opportunity to question it and ultimately have their say with their vote. Similarly, Margaret Court is free to express her opinion on same sex marriage. Those opinions too should be held up to the light and scrutinised for their merits. You say that it's "transparently clear that she was not opposed to same-sex relationships". Her own statements do not seem to be congruous with this statement. When speaking about Martina Navratilova in the 90s she said "It's very sad for children to be exposed to homosexuality. Martina is a nice person. Her life has just gone astray". How is that the words of someone who is not opposed to same-sex relationships? By virtue of existing she is saying that Navratilova has "gone astray" and is a threat to children. She even accused lesbian and bisexual players of "ruining the sport". That was long before same-sex marraige was even a possibility. The woman has a deep disdain and fear of gay people. It's plain to see. When apartheid was at its height in South Africa, many athletes boycotted and spoke out against it. Are you saying that they should have been forced to play? Probably worth noting that Margaret Court was a big fan of apartheid. The first female athlete from Saudi Arabia to compete at the olympics was in London 2012. Prior to that, women were not allowed to compete by Saudi Arabian law. Are you saying that female athletes and administrators, like Anita Defrantz, shouldn't have spoken out against this injustice? Should they have just kept politics out of sport? Should black players have not fought for integration in baseball? Gotta keep that politicking out of sport. Sit down over there and stay quiet, why don't you. Of course not. Politics and sport both exist in the real world. As long as that is the case, politics will always affect sport and sport will always affect politics. Finally, I would note that your use of the term "social engineering" exposes your bias.

I like to wait before jumping in to make sure the water's deep enough. Not going to waste effort if the author isn't. The whole Margaret Court saga is just a contest of ideas. Yes she's entitled to express her opinion, just as Stosur and Navratilova and others are entitled to express theirs. Court went way beyond defending traditional marriage though, launching into some nasty personal smears against people different to her all for demonstrating her own piety or god knows what reason. The author is demanding politics stay out of sport, yet the person he's championing, Margaret Court, is the one introducing it into sport, complaining that there's too many lesbians in tennis - I mean honestly.

Well Paul you either feel passionately about the issue or passionately about ridiculing the author so which one is it? If you thought that you just added some intellectual depth to the discussion you're sadly mistaken my friend. I dare say he's upset because they are talking about stripping our greatest ever tennis player of her deserved recognition because she expressed an opinion that she is entitled to have. I for one agree, if this is indeed what he's saying. The whole saga is a joke.