So, it happened again. As many predicted, Israel Folau has shared some contentious religious views via social media and the spotlight has been shone brightly on Rugby Australia and Raelene Castle.
Unsurprisingly, there has been a huge amount of debate about the topic and how RA should respond.
Do they punish him? Do they let it go until Alan Joyce kicks up a fuss? Do they stay very still and hope that Tim Paine takes a razor blade onto the field and the media’s attention moves on?
People have claimed that there’s nothing that could be done or should be done. Folau has a right to say what he feels and while many, including RA, might not agree with the specific message, they respect his right to say it.
Others are saying that Folau’s tweet is offensive and hate-filled and should be met with a harsh punishment from RA, no matter how big a talent he is.
Over the past day, I’ve been trying to think about what Castle should do. Her words on Wednesday were diplomatic and measured, as she sensibly looked to buy time to consider a response and maybe ask herself why on Earth she said yes to the CEO gig.
Rugby Australia CEO Raelene Castle. (AAP Image/Daniel Munoz)
But the answer seems pretty straightforward.
My assumption is that Folau’s contract with RA is made up of different elements. One of those elements is likely to be for his actual rugby playing and all that entails – training, camps, travel, matches etc.
Other elements will include his work as an ambassador and marketing asset for RA and brands that sponsor the Wallabies – Qantas, for example.
RA have made it clear that they respect Folau’s right to have his views and communicate them to others. They have also made it clear that they think differently to him on some of those views.
Therefore, RA can say, “We respect and value you as a player. We want you to continue to be a Wallaby and we will pay you in return for your efforts on the rugby side of things.
“However, your views on some key topics are different to our brands’ views and the views of some of our sponsors on those same topics. Therefore you will no longer be asked to be part of or paid for being part of RA or the Wallabies’ media, marketing and brand activities.”
Photo by Matt King/Getty Images
This seems a sensible way to strike the balance. RA can respect Folau’s right to his views, allow him to continue to play rugby for Australia if he wants to, and he’d be well paid for doing so as he is a great talent.
But they can also make it clear that there is a significant misalignment between each parties’ views on important matters and therefore it would be inappropriate to ask and reward Folau to represent RA and the Wallabies in media and marketing activities.
As long as he treats his fellow players with respect and his performance in training and on the field does not drop, let the guy play and pay him for it. But when it comes to being paid primarily for being an ambassador and extension of the RA brand, Folau doesn’t seem to fit any longer, because of his views.
That’s fine. RA don’t need to tell him he’s wrong for having those views, they don’t need to try and stop him from sharing them in his own time on his own channels. But they can say “your views are not aligned with ours and for our marketing we need alignment”.
This approach also means they don’t need to punish Folau for past actions, but rather renegotiate his remuneration to better fit the role he will be taking on.
There has been talk about how important Folau is to the Wallabies, especially with the World Cup just over a year away. But as gets said all the time when scandals about high-profile individuals hit sports, the game is bigger than just one person.
The decisions that Castle and RA make are not about protecting Folau’s rights to say what he wants to say – that’s the government’s job. RA and Castle need to make sure that they are protecting and promoting the game of rugby in Australia, and they can do that while also respecting Folau’s choice to say what he believes.
This approach is not perfect, however it ticks a lot of boxes and is at least RA doing something rather than waiting on some other scandal to hijack the spotlight.
GusTee
Roar Pro
Sorry, but as to the first part, were you talking about Alan Joyce and Qantas.
GusTee
Roar Pro
Oh Jesus, Allah or whoever - all this waste of time over Folau ..... Blah, Blah, Blah When is RA and all the intelligentsia who write for The Roar going to focus on rugby and fix ruby union in Australia.
ScottD
Roar Guru
There has been a lot of talk on this matter but it doesn't really deal with the underlying issue. An employee with a big public profile is trading on that profile to promote his personal opinion on a matter where that opinion is contrary to his employer and where his expression of opinion is damaging the employers ability to earn revenue. A really simple solution is at hand but it will take a little bit of time and some gumption. Step 1: Review his contract. Step 2: If there is a clause that is legally strong enough to terminate his contract then sit him down and give him a letter of warning that if he doesn't stop acting contrary to his employers interests then his contract will be terminated; Step 3: If he continues to breach that clause in his contract then terminate his RA contract. For the record this doesn't stop him playing SR but removes his "top up" contract with RA. Step 4: If there isn't a clause with enough legal power to do Steps 2&3 then wait patiently until the end of this season when his contract expires and offer him a new contract with such a clause in there. The solution is very very simple and straight forward. It just takes some courage and firm management.
Beastie Boy
Guest
This idea doesn’t work in my opinion. Put simply if he plays and continues to publically put forward views that breach the policies of his employer he is damaging the brand so RA have one decision to make. Allow him to preach hate and damage the sports reputation / brand / divide the playing group etc or take a decision to remove him immediately. One player ( no matter how good a player ) should be allowed to be bigger than the team. Leadership at the Tah’s and RA is sorely lacking. Sponsors will start to withdraw due to brand damage and they only have their inaction to blame.
Oliver Matthews
Expert
Yeah it could get a bit messy and there would need to be more thought about that. Perhaps the deal is that the sponsors accept that they are sponsoring the team that plays on the field and so Folau would have their logo on his shirt. But that he would not be used as a voice piece for the RA in any manner and so would not be that big figurehead that he is now off the field.
Oliver Matthews
Expert
But I kinda think that's the point - ultimately RA can't stop him from moving on to somewhere else and while Folau is a very good player, he's not going to be the single reason why Australia win or lose the World Cup next year is he? So if he goes for more money then the RA can hold their head high and say "we respected his right to share his beliefs and we respected both our and our sponsors values". Seems like a fine position for the RA to be in. If the RA are not responding/taking action because they believe that approach will help keep Folau in the game and that if he stays in the game all their problems are fixed then they have far bigger problems than Folau's social media activity.
MW7
Guest
From all the suggestions I have read this is probably the best way to deal with this. He can keep his free speech (and his duty to his faith is intact) but the market and businesses can decide whether he is worth being the face of their brands. If he decides it is not good enough then so be it.
terrence
Guest
which christians are you talking bout?..hell and heaven are christian constructs..
dirtyrottenscoundrel
Guest
TWAS, the only problem RA have (if they adopt Oliver's suggestion) is who do RA use as their FACE Yeah that is the only issue worth talking about.
dirtyrottenscoundrel
Guest
Correct... Bible is derived from the Greek word biblia. Greek word biblia English translation of biblia = books
bilo
Guest
"I was responding to bilo’s astonishment that the bible had the word tattoo in it." Tattoo is also I believe a Polynesian word in origin, I know the Polynesian peoples were great sea farers but I don't think they reached the Mediterranean to swap linguistics
Akari
Roar Rookie
So is Izzy being inclusive and supporting gays when he puts on a WBs jersey with the Qantas logo on?
Akari
Roar Rookie
I love it piru...
Akari
Roar Rookie
The Crusaders will have to ask for permission from Tew and the NZRU board first and I think the answer might be a no.
Akari
Roar Rookie
+1
piru
Roar Rookie
jez I reckon I could start my own church on that basis
piru
Roar Rookie
It is, and yet we give them a metaphorical pedestal and a bullhorn anyway
piru
Roar Rookie
... sorry mate don't agree - if someone starts declaring white supremacy as the way to go, his boss needs to be able to sack him
piru
Roar Rookie
moaman - actually it was originally an ignorant pakeha misspelling of peruperu I used to be known as pirupiru back in the days of rugbyheaven I was responding to bilo's astonishment that the bible had the word tattoo in it.
goat
Guest
Completely agree with this. To say that belief in hell is not part of mainline Christian theology is to have a smorgasbord attitude to Christianity (and religion in general): you pick and choose what you want. That's not treating that religion with respect. It's you imposing on that religion what you think it should be. What has been commonly considered Christian theology, across denominations, for centuries is summarised in the creeds. The Nicene Creed and the Apostles' Creed mention hell. For what it's worth, Folau later referred to 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 when he spoke about practices disqualifying you from the kingdom of heaven. It's a broad list, not just homosexual practice. If you manage to read it, verse 11 is the good bit.