By John Wylie
A time-honoured principle of Australian sport is that no individual is bigger than their sport. It’s a reflection of our national love of sport and our spirit of egalitarianism.
The recent phenomenon of sports stars in elite teams rejecting or distancing themselves from national sponsors risks turning this principle on its head. Individual athletes seem to now have the power to decide who or what’s appropriate or inappropriate for a national team or entire sport. The team dynamic that is an integral part of team sport magnifies the risk. One player’s issue can quickly become one for the whole team, motivated by the noble urge to stand shoulder to shoulder, in the solidarity that is the essence of team success.
Netball Australia has lost a major sponsor in Hancock Prospecting. Credit:Scott McNaughton
While no one doubts the bona fides of the individuals, the validity of their personal concerns, or their genuine desire to advance the best interests of the game they love, it’s a poor development for sport, in multiple ways.
Commercial sponsorships, even those focused just on the elite level as in cricket and netball, impact the financial competitiveness of entire sports, down to the grassroots. Grassroots sport made the elite athletes of today, so when they get to the top of their game, they in turn have – or should consider themselves to have – an absolute responsibility to do what they can to advance future investment in those grassroots. It’s the right thing for the tens of thousands of kids starting out who want and deserve the best possible opportunity in the sport. Which means maximising the sport’s revenue base, at all levels, and helping secure the financial future of the game.
In truth, outside a very small number of professional sports with large media deals, many Australian sports are struggling financially.
Netball is in the media headlines today, but the issue goes well beyond that sport. Cricket faces long-term relevance and revenue challenges. Many young Australians these days are more familiar with the names of English Premier League soccer players or American basketballers than those in our national cricket teams. The sport should be extremely careful about players passing judgment on the brands and values of major supporters, especially players in leadership positions.
Netball’s been teetering on the brink of financial distress for years, and has had to be propped up by injections of taxpayer cash. Its commercial competitive dynamics are getting more challenging. The AFL’s monster new media deal means that for the first time, in the reasonably near future, AFLW players will be paid more on average than those in Super Netball. Rising pay for women in other sporting codes is a great thing for society, it’s a great thing for women in sport, but it should be a worrying thing for the sport of netball. This is a sport that wants to feature in our home Olympic Games in 2032. It needs to be getting stronger competitively, not weaker.
The question can reasonably be asked as to who fills the void left by sponsors departing the field or reducing their support. Are sports gambling companies better corporate citizens than energy or mining companies? Why? Where does the line get drawn, and by whom?
The answer should not be the taxpayer, which is often the default proposition behind the scenes from financially weaker sports. There should be no taxpayer-funded bailout or top-up package to replace foregone commercial sponsorship for any sport rejecting reputable opportunities.
Commercial sponsors also bring a lot more to the table for sports than just money. They bring commercial nous, connections, and a valuable outside perspective to what’s often a closed, internally focused system. No commercial organisation wants to risk kicking an own goal by having their brand dumped on publicly by athletes they’re trying to support. Better to sit on the sidelines and watch, which is what will happen if this trend continues.
In the case of Hancock Prospecting, it’s a company that operates in Australia’s largest export industry, employs thousands of Australians, builds relationships for our country in Asia, and pays taxes. It supports a wide range of Australian Olympic and Paralympic sports such as swimming, rowing and volleyball. The funding it provides is a fraction of what those sports receive from the Australian Sports Commission, but it’s made a positive difference to recent Australian success in these sports. The alacrity with which rowing and volleyball put out statements of support for Hancock in recent days underscores this.
This does not mean sports should take money from anyone. Australians don’t want sports they admire taking money from odious political regimes or from companies selling products that kill people. Nor does it endorse in any way views that are repugnant to modern values. It needs to be recognised, however, that administrators of sports organisations these days are keenly focused on getting balances right and maintaining their sport’s “social licence to operate”, which in simple terms means its public standing. Just as sport is left to the sports stars, the administration of a sport is best left to the administrators, whose job is to judge the totality of the picture. If those involved in a sport don’t like decisions made by the administrators, change the administrators, in a democratic process.
Many traditional Australian sports face a fight for their future in an increasingly global environment, where the strong are getting stronger relative to the rest. As a sports-loving nation, Australians want our system to be strong, especially as we look ahead to a home Olympics and Paralympics. Elite athletes at the top of the pyramid in the public eye have a crucial role to play in encouraging the support of reputable companies that bring money, skills and goodwill to the table, for the benefit of all.
John Wylie is a former chair of the Australian Sports Commission
News, results and expert analysis from the weekend of sport sent every Monday. Sign up for our Sport newsletter.
