The nature of modern professional sport is that many who suit up in a team’s colours have little to do with the region they represent.
Whether in the US where the trades and loyalty are as fluid as water, or here in Australia where there is still resentment towards the fairly recent disconnect between where one is raised and trained as opposed to the professional team the person plays for, many ask the same question. Why would a person would even support a team when the players do not even come from the locale they are representing?
It is a fair question and not one to be taken lightly, but there is a good deal in what establishes the legitimacy of a sports organisation, whether it be gilded or golden.
In this age of greater professionalism, where playing to entertain oneself as a player comes significantly lower down the ladder than the dominant institutional goal of playing to entertain spectators, rules and policies get pushed further into place to provide a more competitive atmosphere.
Having the same team win time in and time out as we see in a financial free market of laissez-faire business practices is just not interesting or exciting for those that support the teams that never win, but also those that find that winning has become too easy.
The result to prevent this can be seen in systems such as the draft and salary caps that prevent one team from maintaining, growing, and keeping the best players generationally in the hopes of the tightest competition possible. This year’s AFL competition has been touted as one of the closest in memory and many attribute this to the above reasons – with the father-son rule being an exception.
But this does not answer why a person should support their local team when the players are anything but local.
What we are seeing is a shift in mentality almost like what was seen in government in places like the United Kingdom beginning with the reign of William and Mary. Though this seems far-fetched, it is actually very closely related.
Prior to William and Mary, the monarchy had much greater powers, which the two relinquished to Parliament in exchange for security at the throne after James II. If a person wanted to run the country at this time, he had to be from the right lineage from the right family or go to war and seize the throne. This in turn would lead to the same system of familiar rulership. In short, if a person were not the right sex from the right family in the right line of inheritance, he would not have a say in running the country.
(AAP Image/Dave Hunt)
After this, a parliament of elected officials became the norm, which also spread to different but similar enough systems that embraced the Westminster and/or Washington government models of representative democracy. Here, where a person was from or whether they had the right lineage became less relevant.
If a person wanted to represent community X, all that was needed was a popular vote to make it official. Where the person was from essentially became increasingly more irrelevant.
For example, despite both having been New York State senators, Robert F. Kennedy was from Massachusetts and Hillary Clinton from Illinois. In Australia, unlike in the US where the law requires one be born in America to be president, the role of Prime Minister does not require so.
Julia Gillard was born in Barry, Wales in the UK. Tony Abbott was born in London. Yet all of the above were voted in and accepted to represent others from their respective ‘adopted’ communities.
Why is this the case? The nature of politics and the marketplace also act in a way that provides for greater efficiency. In business, for reasons different than those mentioned above in the laissez-faire/salary cap example, we are not limited to only select employees from one town, city, university, or other criteria.
To follow with another question, why do we believe that a sports team should be any different? We want our team to win so what is the problem with hiring the best from the talent pool?
Why should we restrict ourselves to a monarchical, parochial, and “regionist” mentality of exclusivity based solely on where a person was born or lived? The simple answer is that it is culture. This is how it has been for a long time and it is what we are accustomed to.
However, in a competitive workplace, whether it is sport or otherwise, we want to win and the team that either a) does not embrace the comingling of talent from all over and/or b) cannot produce enough local talent to compete will be eaten alive or become irrelevant at best.
This is not that different in sport. We vote with our wallet and it shows when the administration of a company succeeds or fails. We show up or tune-in to games and success brings high interest.
In regards to maintaining an insulated pool of talent, look at the All Blacks. There is no end to the talent pool of Kiwis able to fill the shoes of another New Zealander to keep them as the or at least a top rugby side in the world. This is on a national scale, however, and there are still domestic allegiances that simply come from citizenship.
The issue becomes dicier when it comes to club sides because they are, by definition, closer to home. Things become even more complicated when a player becomes a member of different teams over time.
We ask where their allegiance is and the answer is to their career. Look at those like Darrelle Revis who was and is a NY Jet but left to win a Super Bowl with the NE Patriots.
Think about LeBron James who won two of his championships in Miami but is a Cleveland native.
(Image: NBA)
Buddy Franklin, Garry Ablett Jr, and even a code hopper like Jarryd Hayne. Who do they belong to if anyone? In asking this, we forget that it is within the framework of a sport ecosystem that has been created to promote a tight competition.
After all, this is what we ask for, so something has to give; it just so happens to be hyperlocalism.
Antony Pincombe
Roar Rookie
Most sporting teams have at least one native born player. The Gold coast has seven Queensland players, one on the Rookie list. The Swans have a few more local players with eleven, one a Rookie. I could go on but I doubt there is one AFL team without a local player playing for them. The fact is with the expansion of the old VFL to the AFL and a national competition the local tribal nature of footy has changed. I don't think you can equate modern royalty to tribalism. Modern royalty is based on inbreeding whereas tribal culture was very aware of inbreeding and sought ways to eradicate it. Whether by war to enslave other tribe's people or by negotiate intermarriage inbreeding was controlled. This is not so far from the sports culture we have today. The old VFL were not beyond buying premierships and the South Melbourne team of the 1930's was called 'The Swans' not because Swans were prevalent in Albert Park Lake but because they had so many Western Australian players in the side. The Swans literally bought a premiership. That became the norm in the VFL. players from all over the country have played VFL footy. In many cases being required to play interstate footy against their home state for the Big V.
Spencer Kassimir
Roar Pro
@Big J I read that and completely agree. There should be a sports culture/business tab. That was a great article for that matter. As things would have it, I'll be lecturing at the Australian Society for Sport History the week of July 3rd in Sydney. If anyone is interested, reach me on Twitter at @BallsOutPhD
Republican
Guest
.............are not GWS owned by a tele network? The Rebels are privately owned. The AFL are owned by television and at the behest of a corporate vision in that respect, to be brutally honest. So in that context where exactly is the 'sense of ownership' Perry?
Republican
Guest
.....I don't believe they opt to become part of a community at all. They opt to join an organisation that will enhance their career path.........
Republican
Guest
......while there is no show without an audience.
Republican
Guest
........& what of the remaining AFL entities? What grounds do they play out of? Docklands is west of the G don't you reckon?.......
BigJ
Roar Guru
Hi spence. I like the idea of a general sports tab idea i think mys it wrong to support more than one club? Article would fit in perfectly. Have a read and let me know. Also great article excellent read.
Paul D
Roar Guru
SOO doesn't mean anything to people outside the heartland states, so if the AFL is in any way serious about being a national sport the idea of SOO is an anachronism. The way things are heading the WA, SA, NSW and QLD teams will all be virtually state of origin anyway. The only way I could see it working would be Victoria vs the rest but you’ve still got the issue of it being an exhibition match then. Ultimately it will never mean as much as a flag to most fans, and the people to whom SOO does still mean a lot are all getting older and less every year anyway. Another decade at most and it won’t even be a thought bubble anymore.
Cat
Roar Guru
I'd hate to see any of my teams players get injured for what is a glorified practice match series that ultimately means absolutely nothing. One of the reasons I can't get into NRL is because of SoO. I hate seeing the Storms season go off the rails every time SoO comes around. For me winning a Premiership is way, way, way more important than winning a practice match series.
Spencer Kassimir
Roar Pro
@Cat Really? Why not?
Leonard
Guest
Loved the passion in this article, Spencer - very similar to the sort you see in 'rusted on' fans of the century-old VFL > AFL clubs. And about its "I have never set foot in Green Bay or even Wisconsin, nor do I own any shares in the Packers (and can’t in the Jets), but I still vote with my eyes and my wallet. To the Cheeseheads of Green Bay and the world, you are an inspiration and I hope to be welcomed into your family": in our six-month Blundstone Tour of Western Civilisation / Amtrak Phase" in 1998, in our week in Chicago (almost mandatory for Melburnians) I took the Greyhound up to Green Bay and went to their Hall of Fame (but Lambeau Field was undergoing refits). As soon as I opened my gob, I was welcomed from Dahn Under and given a guided tour. Priceless. PS: based on our now near 20 years ago experiences, we heartily recommend Amtrak for getting around the US (but don't rely on their getting to your airport departure gate on time!).
Spencer Kassimir
Roar Pro
Amen to that Leonard. And here is my article on why I ended up with the Packers. http://goo.gl/QsX68c Love the green and gold but still have a lot of attachment to the blue and gold throwback uniform.
Leonard
Guest
A related point: according to a June 2010 Productivity Commission report, "GAMBLING - around 70 per cent of Australians participated in some form of gambling in the past year; gambling takes many forms, including lotteries and ‘scratchies’ (these are the most popular in terms of participation but comprise a small share of spending), electronic gaming machines or ‘pokies’, table games (such as roulette and blackjack), wagering and online gaming. "PROBLEM GAMBLING - the risk for people who only play lotteries and scratchies is low but rises steeply with the frequency of gambling on table games, wagering and especially gaming machines; 600,000 Australians play the pokies at least once a week and 95,000 pokies players are problem gamblers; problem gamblers contribute 40 per cent of the money put into poker machines; about 115,000 Australians are classified as ‘problem gamblers’ with a further 280,000 people at 'moderate risk'." [Minor layout changes] Our adult population (at a very rough estimate from ABS stats) is about 20,000,000, which means that about 200,000 (= one percent) are 'moderate risk' or 'problem gamblers'. Which in turn means, broadly, that 99% are not. (However, this 'broad' stat needs to be linked to the number of other people affected by that 200,000.) So, is there any need for Big Nannies in Canberra (and anywhere else) to 'do a Prohibition' on gambling? (Besides, look at all the rorts they dip into!) But, our FTA and pay TV screens losing gambling-linked ads just before, during and just after game time? "I'd like to see that" - bloody oath I would.
Leonard
Guest
Can understand epiquin's finding "a club that speaks to me". When I got interested in the NFL in the 1990s (as a result of reading about Darren Bennett's achievements), the one and only team (not really 'clubs', are they?) for me was the Green Bay Packers because of: ~ their almost unique small town location and supporter base (like Geelong's); ~ their stability in not having moved around here and there and every which place; ~ their unique community, NON-corporate ownership; and, just as importantly, ~ their colours.
Leonard
Guest
Depends on the meaning of "the 2nd least popular football team [or should that be 'club'?] in Melbourne', doesn't it? If it is bums on seats at actual games here are some average Home crowds stats: 10,528 from ??? games 2010/11-2016/17, Melbourne Heart/City (A-League); 11,334 from 9 games 2014 season only^, Melbourne Rebels (NRL); 12,708 from 234 games 1998-2017 (to date), Melbourne Storm (NRL); 15,270 from 735 games 1921-1996, Fitzroy (V-AFL); 21,649 from ??? games 2005/06-2016/17, Melbourne Victory (A-League); 26,701 from 227 games 1997-2017 (to date), North Melbourne (AFL); 27,027 from 224 games 1997-2017 (to date), Western Bulldogs (AFL). Sources: http://www.ultimatealeague.com/ http://afltables.com/afl/afl_index.html http://afltables.com/rl/rl_index.html ^ nearly googled my fingertips off looking for ARU stats.
Leonard
Guest
About "bring[ing] their prior loyalties with them": this would apply particularly in Tasmania as well - many people have had loyalties to the longstanding VFL clubs, and might be lukewarm towards a specific 'Tassie' club, whether it be a relocated current Melbourne-based club, or a new entity. Similarly, people with a history of family support for VFL clubs would not warm to current 'Home Away-from-Home' clubs Hawthorn (at York Park, Launceston) and north Melbourne (at Bellerive Oval Hobart).
anon
Roar Pro
That's a great point. Sports in Australia owe a lot of their success to betting, tipping, fantasy points, and other forms of gambling that keep people interested in meaningless matches.
mds1970
Roar Guru
The whole point of the Academy system for the northern state clubs is to accelerate the process by which those clubs have the capability of drawing on local juniors.
BillyW
Roar Rookie
Good comment Anthony, I couldn't read the whole article but have taken an interest in the comments thread. I first started following footy as a lad in the late 70s early 80s and it was still very much like you described, you followed the club that represented where you lived or were raised and in our case out in the hills you also followed the SANFL club that you were zoned to as that's where you got to try out. But it slowly changed as media coverage increased now that it's so saturated there are many reasons kids will pick a team to support......family tradition, favourite player plays there, like the colours, successful era when interest began etc... So not only do supporters not support the most local club that maybe filled with imports but they might support a far away club ....also filled with imports....it's the modern era, back in the day the majority of a clubs fans walked down to the local oval to cheer on the team that represents their community, now the majority sit in their lounge rooms and cheer on any team in the world they choose to.....and really who cares as long as the kids still get outside, run around and try to emulate their sports stars where ever they hail from!
Spencer Kassimir
Roar Pro
@AdelaideDocker and everyone else. Does anyone think that the betting culture has anything to do with it? I see a lot of people more interested in the odds more than the success of the side they support.