Cloud9
Guest
- Messages
- 1,126
Theres been a lot of debate recently about whether there are too many Sydney teams competing in a limited market. A few posters have suggested that too many Sydney teams are holding back the growth of the game. Traditionalists argue that Sydney teams are the very fabric of the game, steeped in history and tribalism.
However, at what point does this turf war become detrimental to the greater good of the game? Is the idea of traditional rivalries a false notion because relationships ebb and flow, old rivalries die and new ones form.
I believe that tribalism is different to nationalism - which has plagued the sport of soccer in the past and scaring off mainstream support.
I think its an issue that an independent commission can try to resolve. Some rivalries i see as quite entertaining and good for the game (Souths vs Easts) and should be preserved.
Can some of theses existing tribes merge and form an aliiance? Having said that, the South-Eastern furry Chooks sounds appealing.
If these Sydney clubs don't cut the mustard, they should be demoted but not destroyed to preserve what ever tradition they have. The Newtown Jets are still around.
However, at what point does this turf war become detrimental to the greater good of the game? Is the idea of traditional rivalries a false notion because relationships ebb and flow, old rivalries die and new ones form.
I believe that tribalism is different to nationalism - which has plagued the sport of soccer in the past and scaring off mainstream support.
I think its an issue that an independent commission can try to resolve. Some rivalries i see as quite entertaining and good for the game (Souths vs Easts) and should be preserved.
Can some of theses existing tribes merge and form an aliiance? Having said that, the South-Eastern furry Chooks sounds appealing.
If these Sydney clubs don't cut the mustard, they should be demoted but not destroyed to preserve what ever tradition they have. The Newtown Jets are still around.
Last edited: