I Reckon it's a pretty good article by Mascord and he writes from the heart but there's a couple of things in his argument that I think we can't do much about, and I quote;
"On the other is a governing body run by a former corporate banker trying to figure out why twice as many Australian women say they have been to an AFL game as to a rugby league match, and why rugby union still gets blue-chip sponsors despite all other indicators of its health indicating imminent cardiac arrest."
1. Getting more women into league - I can only comment on personal experience but all the women I know who prefer the AFL over league reckon it has a better perv value and nothing else. None and I mean none of them can tell you the finer attributes of the game. Obviously different requirements of the sports mean that AFL players have a leaner physique and the girls like the kit they wear. Does any woman want to see George Rose in AFL gear?
The AFL appears to have a broader cross section of people who bring the game into the living room. Most of them sound professional and this itself is a big determinant of the image of the sport. This is probably a factor of the game being a game for all of their region, not just a certain socio-economic part of it, like league and union is up here in NSW and QLD.
In contrast, most rugby league presenters sound and project a particular working class, tradie, blokey delivery as if they're watching and discussing the game amongst themselves at the pub or on the worksite. Hadley, Gould, ex-players, etc. Lazy pronunciations or a distinct working class twang. If you're not part of this cross-section of society, you're less likely to get involved. More so if you're a woman.
2. Rugby's corporate support. I work in the marketing industry and I'm one of a handful of people that didn't get a private school education which makes holding a rugby league conversation at the water cooler a lonely task. I've seen clients throw away tons of money sponsoring golf events even when I show them the rating figures that illustrate that nobody's watching the damn thing. Rugby benefits the same way in spite of sh1t ratings. Sponsorship is the indulging of one's passion with somebody else's money and rugby's their game.
So all the public school educated boffins are working at gambling agencies, alcohol companies, etc? the game's heartland is in the western suburbs of sydney. lower home values, lower average wages and salaries, etc. guys who prefer bundy, JB and vb to a glass of red or a craft beer.
sponsors will put money into something where they can get their name and business to their target market, not necessarily into something that can be seen by more eyeballs but with little business conversion from it. that's why the guys who run KPMG or computer associates will invest in rugby. because the folks who are most likely to use them watch rugby. likewise, the folks who are most likely to drink jim beam and coke or VB watch rugby league.
Certainly, our game doesn't help itself with its off field notoriety but the working man's game is more likely to come off second best when the corporate class hold the purse strings.
keep pushing this definition of rugby league, and a broader range of businesses will never get involved.
