www.eurekastreet.com.au - Western Bulldogs' example for the common good. Andrew Hamilton | 11 October 2016

Andrew Hamilton | 11 October 2016
LINK

After a tense trade period and few weeks of slow AFL news, I dug this article from the internet and it's worth a read.

Some of the bits I like:

- ... Relationships between players, between players and coach, those of the club with supporters, with board, with media, with community organisations, with the local community, to the state and national audience were not primarily economic. They were best described in terms of friendship, altruism, imaginative ownership, encouragement, pride and motivation.

- ... 'No dickheads' policy, more positively expressed in the concern for the full human development of players.

- ... the competitiveness of individuals, businesses and corporations need to be tempered and subordinated to the development of character. This is important for shaping good human beings.


Enjoy ....

The best writers on sport show that it is a metaphor for life. Perhaps that is why the triumph of the Western Bulldogs in the AFL Grand Final has been so ruthlessly milked for larger significance that it should now be put out to graze.

But I would like to exploit it once more because it illustrates the weakness of the liberal politics I discussed last week. To recap, the assumption of liberal politics is that the government should give priority to economic growth through a free competitive market. It identifies the national good with economic growth and effectively defines personal worth by the individual's level of participation in the economy.

It assumes also that all will benefit from the economic growth that unfettered competition between individuals yields.

The joy of the Western Bulldogs victory lay in its challenge to these assumptions. In the first place it was only possible because the clubs had realised that unfettered competition did not benefit all clubs. It increased the resources and success of wealthy clubs while threatening to leave poor clubs resourceless and unsuccessful.

The Western Bulldogs, a relatively poor club, recognised that its own success had been possible only because the competition between clubs was moderated by caps that limited the money that could be spent on buying players and on infrastructure, and by a distribution of revenue that gave financial and other support to poorer clubs, most notably to those in the rugby badlands.

The wealthier clubs, though with some grumbling, accepted this restriction on competition because they realised that in the longer term their own prosperity depended on ensuring the prosperity of all clubs, and especially the weakest.

They recognised that a competition in which most clubs were uncompetitive, their supporter base apathetic, and their games unattractive to watch, would lessen public interest in the game. This would affect the media interest and income on which their own prosperity relied. Unrestricted competition would undermine their own prosperity.

https://www.eurekastreet.com.au/uplo...e/16/50005.jpg

In the Western Bulldogs' premiership, too, economic factors were consistently set within a broader pattern. The club recognised the importance of many sets of relationships, all of which were important in the building of the club.

Quote:

---

"In the search for success football clubs accept a responsibility to place individual competitiveness in a broader context. It leads them to encourage a player to miss a game at some cost to the team for personal or family reasons."

---

Those that aimed at profit, although crucial, were means to that end, not a goal in themselves. Relationships between players, between players and coach, those of the club with supporters, with board, with media, with community organisations, with the local community, to the state and national audience were not primarily economic. They were best described in terms of friendship, altruism, imaginative ownership, encouragement, pride and motivation.

Individual competitiveness, of course, is central in playing football. To be described as a fierce competitor is high praise. And premierships are famously not won unless the winning team's players are fiercest of all. But individual competitiveness must be tempered by altruism. The individual needs to cooperate with others to achieve a shared prize that transcends individual glory. Two of the notable features of the Grand Final were that players who missed out on the team responded so generously, and that the coach presented his own premiership medal to his injured captain.

For lasting success football teams need to build a culture in which competitiveness is further tempered. It is enshrined in the 'No dickheads' policy, more positively expressed in the concern for the full human development of players. It leads teams, for example, to encourage a player to miss games at some cost to the team for family or personal reasons. In the search for success football clubs accept a responsibility to place individual competitiveness in a broader context. It leads them to encourage a player to miss a game at some cost to the team for personal or family reasons.

They might also expect their players to visit hospitals and disadvantaged children, to behave responsibly in their recreation, and to develop leadership skills through which they will later contribute to the community. Teams look beyond competitiveness for personal or for corporate success to the presence of character — the quality that enables people to see what matters most deeply and to pursue it — and they encourage its development. On this ultimately depends both the sporting success and the economic prosperity of the team.

This example suggests that in order to build a prosperous nation the economy needs to be set within the varied broader relationships of human beings towards one another and to the world. Furthermore, even in the economy, the most critical relationship are not always those that are competitive. If the national good is to be furthered, the economy will need to be regulated to ensure the good of all, particularly the most vulnerable. This is particularly true in the relationships that are involved in globalisation.

Finally, the competitiveness of individuals, businesses and corporations need to be tempered and subordinated to the development of character. This is important for shaping good human beings. It is also the necessary condition for a healthy and sustainable economy. Just as it is necessary in a successful football club.

Is this politics dressed up as football commentary? :)

One point that continually gets missed when discussing equalisation is the concession to 'big' clubs within the fixture and the broader economic benefits they receive as a result. Writers are quick to point out the caps on spending on player salaries or taxes on football departments, and the cash paid to smaller clubs in the name of competitive balance, though rarely do they paint a full picture of the benefits of greater exposure.

Conveniently enough with the author omitting that detail he's able to paint a narrative to suit his leaning, when essentially the AFL is similar to society in that there are significant structural advantages afforded to some, leg-ups for others depending on will of the day's administration, some in the middle and segments who perennially battle.

Occasionally the battlers will have their day in the sun, and if they're really lucky, will nab a few and change the lane in which they move. The odds are they won't, but winning one is the best place to start.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jeemak

One point that continually gets missed when discussing equalisation is the concession to 'big' clubs within the fixture and the broader economic benefits they receive as a result. Writers are quick to point out the caps on spending on player salaries or taxes on football departments, and the cash paid to smaller clubs in the name of competitive balance, though rarely do they paint a full picture of the benefits of greater exposure.

Conveniently enough with the author omitting that detail he's able to paint a narrative to suit his leaning, when essentially the AFL is similar to society in that there are significant structural advantages afforded to some, leg-ups for others depending on will of the day's administration, some in the middle and segments who perennially battle.

---

Fully agree. :) I keep it quietly and didn't want to mention that the equalization is the bit I didn't like in this article. But thanks to Peter Gordon doing a good job to keep this topic in the picture and did everything in his best to advance our case.

Quote:

---

Occasionally the battlers will have their day in the sun, and if they're really lucky, will nab a few and change the lane in which they move. The odds are they won't, but winning one is the best place to start.

---

The club is in the shining light and in the prime time right now. We need to make the best out of the current situation and doing everything we can to become a power club and not going back to the old time.

It's a fifteen to twenty year journey from this point. There's been a lot of groundwork completed over the last decade to set the platform that was this year's premiership, but it's only that, groundwork and a platform. That's not to diminish the achievement, at all, it's just the reality.

Breaking through the glass ceiling of a premiership was one milestone achieved, though now done we've been presented with more layers of glass to break through and it will take an equal if not greater, and much smarter work to do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jeemak

It's a fifteen to twenty year journey from this point. There's been a lot of groundwork completed over the last decade to set the platform that was this year's premiership, but it's only that, groundwork and a platform. That's not to diminish the achievement, at all, it's just the reality.

Breaking through the glass ceiling of a premiership was one milestone achieved, though now done we've been presented with more layers of glass to break through and it will take an equal if not greater, and much smarter work to do so.

---

Mainly because it is un-chartered waters. We've always been positioned, by outside and internal forces, as the battling underdog.

Changing the mindset and focus internally may be the hardest thing, striving for power whilst still remaining true to our past and a fan base that has identified with the underdog tag.

It'll be interesting viewing over the next decade and will no doubt have its road bumps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jeemak

Is this politics dressed up as football commentary? :)

One point that continually gets missed when discussing equalisation is the concession to 'big' clubs within the fixture and the broader economic benefits they receive as a result. Writers are quick to point out the caps on spending on player salaries or taxes on football departments, and the cash paid to smaller clubs in the name of competitive balance, though rarely do they paint a full picture of the benefits of greater exposure.

Conveniently enough with the author omitting that detail he's able to paint a narrative to suit his leaning, when essentially the AFL is similar to society in that there are significant structural advantages afforded to some, leg-ups for others depending on will of the day's administration, some in the middle and segments who perennially battle.

Occasionally the battlers will have their day in the sun, and if they're really lucky, will nab a few and change the lane in which they move. The odds are they won't, but winning one is the best place to start.

---

I think he's quite explicit that this is an opinion piece about politics that uses our victory to make a point, and Eureka Street is a political website (that was once a magazine*), though not politics in a narrow sense of the word - at it's best it intertwines ideas, culture, the arts, everyday life and politics, though of course more than 99% of its pieces have nothing relevant to WOOF :)

I think you're correct in that most pieces on equalisation don't look at the inequalities that still remain in the system. That said, I'm no fan of the AFL, but think that those of us in the footy world tend to take for granted just how radical the equalisation measures are. The draft and salary cap have changed things greatly, and very largely for the better as I see it. Probably the most striking stat is just how many different teams have reached preliminary finals over the past few decades, and although premierships have not been shared around as much as prelim finals teams like the Saints and us have experienced their most sustained period of success ever...

The odds are still not even, but they're much higher than awhile ago and I think that is worth celebrating, though the fight to make them more even is a vital and never-ending one.

One irony is that it comes from the US, where economic and social inequality is even starker. Indeed the NFL in particular has influenced the trajectory of the AFL, and they have grown into the most dominant of the US sports (in the US that is) in large part due to their equalisation measures. A number of people trace baseball's fall from grace to the unwillingess of the rich teams to profit-share and/or have a salary cap. Flukes are possible, but the vastly different budges of contenders and pretenders makes it much less likely. European soccer is even worse, for it has no draft, but it also has the significant advantage of the World Cup, and promotion/relegation battles often makes things still interesting. And yes, the Leicester City's title was extraordinary, but there is also a reason why this was a 1000 to one chance or less - at least in this era we have considerably higher chances than that.

It does seem, however, that we're starting to see how free agency undermines the integrity of the competition (let alone what has happened with the expansion clubs). This is another discussion, and it's also yet to play out, but it clearly threatens the move to equalisation and thus the boon this has provided to the league and the rich clubs. My sense is that the NFL does free agency better than we do, but I'm not sure and would like to see research comparing the two. (The stupidity of private owners in the US complicates things as well.)

*In the interests of disclosure I should note that a decade or so ago I wrote a few pieces for Eureka Stree when it was a magazine (one of which was also about sport, although in this case it was cricket), and consider Andy Hamilton (the author of this piece) a friend.