A few weeks before they play their first game at the FIFA World Cup in Qatar, the Socceroos have again highlighted the delicate balance between politics and big money and sport.
A group of 16 players released a statement on Thursday drawing attention to the sheikdom’s poor treatment of LGBTQI people and of migrant workers employed during the construction of the stadiums.
Football Australia has largely supported the players’ decision to speak out against Qatar’s human rights failings. It is only what most fans think.
Many believe FIFA, world soccer’s governing body, should never have awarded the games to the gas-rich state. France and the US are still investigating allegations that the selection process in 2010 was tainted by corruption. Australia, which was in the running, has questioned what the tiny, repressive Gulf country had going for it.
While the Socceroos’ statement is a welcome expression of these misgivings, FA must hope that the consequences for both players and its own finances are worth it.
FA does not depend on Qatari cash directly but Qatar is a powerful player in the politics of the Asian Football Federation, in which Australia plays, and it could sabotage Australia’s bid for the World Cup in 2034.
It is unlikely that the players will suffer for speaking out when they land in Qatar next month, since their criticism was fairly mild and since other teams such as Denmark have made similar gestures.
Even so, not all Socceroos players have signed the pledge, including one who plays in the Qatari league and two others who play for Qatari-owned teams in Europe.
The Socceroos stand comes less than a week after the Diamonds fought publicly with netball’s major sponsor Gina Rinehart over her father’s attitudes to Indigenous Australians.
The Diamonds’ confrontation with Rinehart has already come at a significant cost.
The dispute started when Indigenous player Donnell Wallam said she would ask for an exemption from wearing the logo of Rinehart’s company Hancock Prospecting on her uniform.
She objected to being associated with its founder Lang Hancock, Rinehart’s father, who made openly racist statements in interviews before he died in 1992.
Even though Netball Australia offered to climb down, Rinehart refused to accept the offer and on Saturday announced she had decided to cancel a $15 million sponsorship deal, citing disagreement between Netball Australia and its players’ union.
Netball Australia made some mistakes in handling this matter but the Herald is baffled by Hancock’s intransigent approach to such a sensitive issue.
It is understandable that Hancock wants to defend her father’s memory. But she did not need to make a crisis out of a request for a minor concession designed to help the sport attract much needed Indigenous talent. It undercuts her claim to be a friend to the Indigenous cause.
It raises questions about how she will respond if similar issues arise in rowing, swimming and athletics which she also sponsors.
In defending her actions, Rinehart repeated the tired argument that she objected to “sports organisations being used as the vehicle for social or political causes”.
For better or worse, however, sport has acquired such a central place in our culture that it is inevitably political. Companies and governments do not just sponsor sport out of altruism.
It is not just netball or soccer. Cricket Australia recently parted ways with energy company Alinta after a controversy over its carbon emissions policies.
Far-sighted sports administrators who run national teams and leagues have to find a middle path between upholding community values and taking cash from companies and countries with controversial reputations.
Bevan Shields sends a newsletter to subscribers each week. Sign up to receive his Note from the Editor.
