We at The Arc are never afraid to shy away from the heavyweight issues surrounding the Australian Game. In fact The Arc is probably the only organisation left in the world of the Australian Game willing to delve deep in to the difficult issues and ask the tough questions of those Pinochet pole riders at AFL house. I know that all of you will agree with me that the game has been commercialised to the point that capitalist influence in the game is so pervasive that it virtually controls the sport. As a result of sponsorship deals, and the like, private enterprise is able to push its ideology further and further into the Australian game. This ideology (the grubby ideology of the parasite) turns clubs, players, coaching staff and supporters into nothing but exploited walking advertisements. It has a massive impact on how the club operates and models itself. Players are required to appear on television wearing club shirts that are emblazoned with the logos of grubby corporations or businesses. Their training clobber is covered with sponsorship, supporters are even forced to wear club attire which makes them walking billboards, one can’t hang banners of support from grandstands because they cover advertising and finally, and possibly the most sacred of all items, the guernsey, is littered with the stain of the capitalist class.
But what does it really matter? What effect does it have on a club? It has a tremendous effect on the club. The power that corporations wield over clubs is enormous. Take for example a few years ago when the running dogs at AFL house arbitrarily imposed an ‘away jumper’ on clubs. Two of the biggest clubs in the country resisted, Essendon and Collingfilth. They resisted because their constitutions forbade the changing of their jumpers. Club executives and presidents took a stand because of tradition, because of pride, because of history. But did they really? Of course they did because there was nothing serious on line. Tradition matters little to bean counters in football clubs. Where was the fucking outcry when sponsors logos became a part of the jumper? Where was the righteous indignation railing against those dark forces trying to trample on tradition then? There was none because capital holds all the cards. Capital holds the money. Capital holds clubs by the ball bag. Shall I tickle that ball bag? No, how about I scrunch the thing up and try to twist off unless you carry out my bidding?
In the past decade we have seen the rise of clubs presenting themselves as some kind of ‘vehicle of values’. Trying to ingrain certain moral cultures or a set of values at their clubs, values which players are compelled to try and uphold. No longer do they tolerate idiot footballers drinking and being violent and touching chick’s bits and shit. What’s wrong with this I hear some of you dildos asking? Nothing, absolutely nothing. Undertaking that kind of anti-social behaviour is probably reprehensible (who am I to judge) and probably should be condemned if it impinges on innocents. But let us be absolutely clear about all this moralism and club culture for once. The clubs primary concern is now the protection of its sponsor’s brand. That some poor bird has been on the end of an unwanted fingering is of secondary concern. Ensuring that your sponsor’s name is not associated with some gherkin going out, drinking a gut full of beer and driving his car into a family from Werribee is what motivates clubs to take a moral stance or build a certain culture within its walls (thus ensuring your primary source of cashish is maintained). This is nothing but utter hypocrisy and there is nothing the Arc despises more than hypocrisy (apart from perhaps the new Gold Coast mutant). Take for example that ridiculous frozen chicken video which a number of players from the North Melbourne Football Club ‘produced’ last year. It was an unfunny and fairly tasteless video which lead to their major sponsor considering ‘its relationship’ with the club. The club went into damage control and out came the myriad of cracked record responses; players apologising and realising that it may have been offensive etc. The sponsor cracked the whip and the club jumped into line.
Still not convinced? Let me pose you the following scenario which was debated at length at an out of session Arc Council of Philosophical Australian Game Musings plenary session just last week.
Let’s say a superstar of the game, Garry Ablett Jr, Nick Roowodlt, Buddy Franklin, Chri$ Judd (Judd might be a poor example for this scenario, bear with us) fronts up to their club and says “Right that’s it, I object to being a walking advertisement. I detest the corporate nature of the AFL and from now on if you wish me to play for your club I refuse to have any sponsor’s logo’s, branding or anything to do with advertising on any of the clothing that I represent the club in. I object to the commodification of my body for the purpose of advertising. I’m willing to take a substantial pay cut and I will continue to play my guts out for this club.”
Besides the absurd nature of the scenario, it raises a number of excellent questions about the power that capital holds over Australian Game clubs. What would the club do? Would it risk losing its sponsors because its marque player refuses to wear their filthy logos? Would it risk losing its marque player because it refused to allow him to wear no sponsorship? How hard would capital push clubs to make its marque player wear its advertising? Would other clubs pick up the superstar if his current club enforced its advertising policy?
The questions don’t end there. What would supporters do? On whose side would the supporters fall? What would the media do? Would it support capital (in essence itself) or would it back the player? The Arc suspects the media would single the player out as being some kind of radical that just doesn’t accept that the modern game is a business. What would the AFL do? We know what the AFL would do!
The Arc agreed unanimously that clubs would not hesitate to dump the player with other potential clubs being scared away from recruiting him by the potential loss in revenue.
Another excellent example is the rage the depraved and corrupt AFL felt at players cutting their socks off at ankle length and inadvertently cutting the AFL logo from the sock. The AFL issued edicts threatening fines if players undertook the practice and no logo could be seen. This from an organisation that is merely a channel that allows capital to flow through it, imagine the uproar if sponsors were suddenly cut out by a marque player refusing to be their bitch.
As usual the Arc is correct in its assessment of the power that capital holds over clubs and the corrupt running dogs at AFL house and once again the Arc is forced to carry out its eternal struggle against these two parasites that suck the life from the Australian game.
