http://www.spectator.co.uk/australia/6273863/league-is-the-game-they-play-in-heaven.thtml
To summarise the article, Mark Latham is lauding the simplicity of rugby league, and lambasting the complexity and elitism of rugby union. However, as I read though the entire article, there was an underlying thread that made me think about the journey of the working man through history. In that context, there is a comparison between rugby and politics. Mark Latham reminds us that the working man founded rugby league. Rugby league was founded as a professional sport to answer the working man’s needs for travelling expenses and subsistence while playing the game. There’s a similar journey by the working man in politics.
But first, I need to point out that Aussie Mark Latham’s logic doesn’t quite add up for rugby union in New Zealand, does it? Here, rugby union has always been the every-man’s game. Colin Meads, Zinzan Brooke, George Nepia and many other working-men All Blacks legends say they played for the All Blacks, despite the fact that they didn’t get paid. Indeed, any resentment or envy has only come out in the last few years when such legends grizzle at the salaries of our new generation of All Blacks legends. Even despite that, rugby union still draws more grass-roots support in New Zealand than rugby league. The article’s premise may hold truth for Australia, but not for New Zealand.
So let’s get back to politics. You know, the pursuit of subsistence while pursuing politics is exactly why the Chartists protested in 19th century Britain. Their Six Point Charter listed demands from the establishment, to allow the working man to have a democratic voice. Indeed, we have since adopted all of those points but one (we’ve rejected annual elections) as the building blocks for our modern democracy. I should add that the Chartists, at the time, were all imprisoned for their efforts.
Eventual success by the Chartists led to the adoption of one-man-one-vote and paid electorates. This led inevitably to working men founding Labour Parties across the commonwealth in the 20th century. Let’s have a look at their record today, say, in New Zealand. How many radical acts or policies do you remember to come out of the “Labour” party in modern times? How many working men in the street would say that the $150,000-earning Labour electorates are in touch with them? There aren’t many voices coming out of the Labour party in support of the Auckland wharfies, are there? Does anyone else find it cynical that such Labour Party hacks are creeping out the wordwork only when the Auckland wharfies dispute has gained mass, popular support? And I wonder how fewer would be those supporting Labour politicians, if Labour was in power managing the dispute?! Despite 11 years in power by our so-called Labour Party, New Zealand is still a right-wing country.
And here’s the comparison: politics is exactly like sport for the working man. As soon as you have a professional sport, paid representatives, it stops being the every-man’s game. It becomes A BUSINESS for the Executive Class to milk. The problem is that working men still think that the legacy sport is “there’s.” Take soccer in the UK. Long ago, former players would end up as coaches, and subsequently form part of the (voluntary or averagely-paid) board of the club. Many a working man still goes to the matches on a Saturday afternoon, but working men no longer run those clubs. A swathe of rich owners and executives own the sport in the UK. How few of those soccer executives actually played the game in the past?
And that scenario is the same for rugby league. Mark Latham’s article is true on the history, but the working man no longer owns rugby league. I find it supremely ironic that Mark Latham, former Australian Federal Labor leader, has written this article. I agree when he says, “rugby league has … maintained its working-class fan base” but I would add that working men have been deceived into thinking that they still own the game. In the same way, we no longer own rugby union here in New Zealand. It is owned by the sponsors and Sky TV. We have sold our soul to the devil (pictured left).
However, the ball sports executives still need the collective money and the collective viewing figures of the working men to feed the game – which is why the illusion is maintained. The ball sports still need the TV ratings to allow the corporate sponsors to sell to the fans. Yet, it is these very corporate sponsors which, like parasites, threaten all ball sports by deluding the working man. Social commentator John Clarke (pictured right) expressed that Sky sports would love nothing else for rugby union than the stadium to be filled with corporate boxes, and the working man sit at home watching the game on Sky – being sold to by adverts and sponsors.Indeed, I’ll tell you where all these football codes are going. The working men still thinks the team is “Their Team.” Southern men still believe that the Highlanders are from Otago!! The thugs at Chelsea still scream at rival London fans, as they watch “Their Team” compete. But how many of those players were born, or even bred, in Chelsea? The teams from the working mens' ball sports are not “Their Teams” any longer. They are franchises. They are businesses. They are corporations. They no longer represent the working man, whatever the code of football. In America, a number of grid-iron franchises (not teams!) upped-and-left their host cities to move to other cities. The “Oakland” Raiders left Oakland in 1982 – then left Los Angeles to go back to Oakland in 1994!
Fans would become so incensed at “Their Team” leaving, some grid-iron franchises had to move city in secret, in the middle of the night, to avoid the anger from those betrayed, delusional fans. Such is the loyalty of the franchise model and corporate business to its customers – the fans.
And politics is no different. How many Labour politicians do you believe are there to genuinely make a difference for the working man? Or are they there for themselves, at the trough? That’s the dilemma and consequence of having professional politicians in the Labour Party. Sadly, I believe that Taito Philip Field was not the only one guilty – he just got caught.
In the same vein, I wonder how many of the Executive Class in rugby league are there for the sport, Mark?
Let’s leave my radical, rambling rantings finally, and focus on the sport. I’ll focus on the difference between the rugby codes. I agree with the article, to the point that League is more free-flowing. However, I love the technical aspect of the Union game. I love the set-pieces, the scrums, the mauls, and the clever, brutal conflict up-front. Rugby Union has become the thinking-man’s game, while League has become Thug Rugby. And that’s exactly how the elite at the IRB want it. As a prominent board member of the English RFU said to Will Carling (and that’s not all that bloody long ago!), “We can’t have just anybody playing this game, you know.” The IRB want to keep a certain “quality” of individual playing the game – ideally from a fee-paying school! That’s certainly happening in Australia, England and Scotland. Wales and New Zealand still seem to be resisting that, thankfully. However, I wonder with sadness, how long it will be until the IRB makes Rugby Union so complicated, that the game becomes unplayable?
