In 2009, do fans (secretly) need athletes to behave the way they do?

In the wake of the Lote “just don’t tell my wife” Tuqiri firing, and the NRL’s tumultuous year, I can’t help but wonder how much this deviant behavior really effects fans. With the way sports have evolved since the proliferation of the media, the philosophy that “all press is good press” has never seemed so true.

---

We stop and stare at car wrecks, we rush to see fights when they breakout at pubs, we watch sex-tapes, we rotate our heads uncomfortably when arguments fire up at sporting events, and we can’t help but ask “were they good?” when we talk about sex. It appears, in life, we are intrigued and fascinated by the devious.

It also appears, in sports, that as they increasingly become defined by their entertainment value – otherwise known as their ability to draw attention by appearing intriguing or fascinating– the need to stay relevant in the social conscience has become the number 1 priority. Consequently, the modern athlete has blurred the line between sports figure and celebrity.

Knowing this, I can’t help but wonder; do we (fans) secretly want and need athletes to behave in the deviant manner they do? Is that why we love certain sports? And more importantly, is that how we justify the time we commit to sports?

A celebrity is a commodity valued according to their cultural power. Their power hinges on their ability to create aspiration and sell their image through commercial products. It is the combination of a diverse range of social taboos and a seemingly unreachable level of stardom that keeps the public interested. As celebrities are always depicted engaging in elicit acts with limited consequence, they appear above the law, and as a result they represent a freedom and lifestyle we as a culture crave. The further they separate themselves from society the more unique and exclusive their image appears.

The more deviant a celebrity acts the more defined their image becomes. As their identity is defined further, and the values they represent become more explicit, they evoke a stronger reaction among the public. Whether or not you like them doesn’t matter; the fact is, they become more compelling.

Take the Paris Hilton sex tape for example: there is more porn on the internet then there are people to watch it, but EVERYONE has seen the Hilton tape. The only thing that separates her from any other D-grade porn “star” is she is Paris HILTON!!! She is compelling because she lives a (financially) free life that is foreign to 99.99% of the world; a sex tape of a person like this is unique, and therefore intriguing and fascinating.

The same principle applies to sport. In Australia there are copious options when it comes to sport (like with porn). Unfortunately a person only has so much money, time, and effort they can devote (like with porn), so they are forced to choose. To choose they need to justify to themselves why they should commit to one sport over another. People do this by arguing that one sport is more interesting and compelling then another.

They use lines like “its more tactical” and “the game has cultural significance”, but the truth is they follow the leagues, teams, and players which they can form an opinion of the best. These are the people they think they know the best. Otherwise known as those who are reported on the most. And those who are reported on the most are those who are the most deviant.

Willie Mason was hated by anyone who didn’t look like a “Fat Pizza” extra, but he turned the ’04 Bulldogs and the NRL’s into the most compelling story of the year. Wendall was outspoken, way past his prime, and more one-dimensional then Sam Kekovich but he made Super Rugby and the Reds compelling. Ben Cousins is a social dropkick and way past his prime but everyone followed his return to the AFL.

The idea that sports have a greater meaning is important to fans (myself included). They strive to justify this constantly. They have to. Because if they don’t, they just dropped 150 bucks and 3 hours to watch guys run into each other or kick a piece of plastic around.

So it appears: the more deviant a player acts, the easier it becomes for a fan to justify their love of sport.

By acting deviant they are reported on more. The more exposure they create defines them further and the more arguably “compelling” they become. The more compelling a league is, the more justifiably interesting it is. The more justifiable any hobby or purchase is (whether it be traded for in time, energy, or money), the less stupid a person feels.

Fans need athletes to behave in the outlandish way they do, the same way people need Lindsay Lohan or Britney Spears to get high and crash their car every six weeks. It helps justify our commitment. So the next time Andrew Symonds gets drunk, or Wendall Sailor gets high, or Karmichael Hunt bangs a 19 year old in a public toilet, somewhere deep inside you will be smiling, because your league just got that bit more interesting.

Brisbane Sports Fan

Breaking down the National [Rights] League

I rip on Rove a lot. Too much some would say. But I do it for the same reason the NRL drives me crazy—the wasted potential.

My argument is this: they have a week to put that show together and it’s half as good as the Tonight show (Leno edition), which mind you, was a nightly production. Rove (the show) has Ben Barber potential, unlimited resources (they are the only talk show that’s worth doing if you are promoting your new whatever in Australia), and next to no competition. They SHOULD be held accountable at a higher standard. If it wasn’t for Peter Helliar it would be borderline unwatchable.

The shows decline has mirrored the myopia that has been expressed by the NRL

At one point, in the early naught-ies, Rove was a well thought out production (Amateurism in Rugby League. There weren’t egos or threats from overseas clubs. Players were in it for the love of the game, to get better, represent their town and their state. ). Then somewhere between Belinda Emmett’s death and the hosting of “Are you smarter than a 5th grader?” things changed (After the Super League war players gradually gained too much power).

The show had a audience, it became too easy, no one was going to rip on him after the unfortunate death of his wife, he was set financially, he had a million other projects to fall back on, every threat needed to go through him to get national recognition; he had complete control and it made no difference whether he put in 50 hours a week or 20 (Like Rove got distracted by other projects, players began to understand the plethora of options they had outside of the NRL. Lazily the NRL did little to curb this. They should have been using the media to challenge players to achieve more. The problem was / is players are achieving too much too quickly. Players are contempt to have played origin and maybe a grand final. The media and the NRL should be diminishing the legacies of those who are contempt with that. They should be defining players by their career numbers. SB Williams won one premiership and was of the mind he had achieved everything he ever could in Rugby League. These guys respond to two things—money and ego. Since the NRL can’t compete financially they should be challenging their egos.)

1. Can you defend the South Sydney raffle “controversy”?

Yes.

There is nothing wrong with a raffle. In fact I think raffles should play a more prominent role in society. Everything is better when there is a raffle involved. Everyone has won a raffle at some point in there life and nothing is more exciting then the prospect of a slab of meat. I’m a willowy fellow who doesn’t eat that much and even I can fondly remember the first time I won. I love this Aussie pastime to the point that I wish my butcher would mock-raffle the meat I purchase. Even if I was the only one in the shop. All I need is a mock-ticket and a “and the winner is…”. It would make my day.

While we are on raffles: why don’t bars capitalize on this?

I’m not talking about local pubs on a Tuesday night during quiz hour. I’m talking about higher end clubs and bars on Friday and Saturday nights. If they raffled a $100 bar tab to be announced at midnight, wouldn’t that be a cash cow? Not only would you make money off what is essentially a second cover charge (who isn’t going to put in a dollar or two for a ticket, especially when people are drinking), but you would keep people at your bar because they are invested in the outcome of the raffle. I’m not saying it has staying power but if you could market it as a “% of profits go to generic charity” operation the first week and bring it back as a pure cash cow the 2nd week, you would make some money. Right?

Back to rugby league. The South’s front office aren’t dumb. They know what their place is in the NRL world and who they are in the eyes of the media and the fans. They have a defined identity as a blue collar, grass-roots, loveable loser club. And they, like all good entities market themselves exactly that way. In his book “All Marketers are Liars” Seth Godin talks about the importance of shaping your corporate message to the worldview of the targeted consumer. People consistently rework the world around them to fit their view on life because that’s how they understand the world.

The more they perpetuate the struggling local club image, the more their fans can relate to them. They are like Pete Doherty. Sure, his stakeholders could support him in his self rehabilitation but then he loses his cultural power as he loses his ability to relate to fans—the majority of Camden—and costs everybody a whole lotta money. In business and marketing you exhaust all your avenues, resources, and touch points. I think this is a savvy move by the Souths front office.

(My other nightlife idea: Purely from a prudent capitalist mindset; why don’t they sell music requests? DJs are at the point where they do more harm then good when they fuck with songs now, so why not let people pay for a choice of music. Clubs could supply a refined list to choose from and they wouldn’t have to worry about clashing styles because certain people go to certain clubs. It sounds like it wouldn’t work but I guarantee there are people dumb enough to pay for music at a club.)

2. What does Hunt’s imminent departure say about the state of the NRL?

July 02, 2009 - By Matt Marchall of the Daily Telegraph - "I've been lucky enough to have achieved a lot at a young age by playing over 100 NRL games, Test matches and State of Origin," Hunt said. "All these goals are what I set out to achieve as a 17-year-old.

I know I have achieved everything I set out to do as a 17 year old; namely, get laid, get laid, save up for a PS3, get laid, master the GO Card, and oh yeah, get laid. Although Hunt has achieved everything I have and a whole lot more (premiership, origin title, rookie of the year award, national nicknames that weren’t thought through enough, a signature body movement with a nickname even less thought through, a hot girl friend, tri-nations title, and arguably the worlds most oversized thighs) I doubt he would have mastered the GO Card.

The issue for the NRL is career perception. Hunt believes – and it’s hard logic to argue with – that he has accomplished everything worth accomplishing in the NRL. Sure the money is a huge factor but he is only 22. That money will still be there in three years if he thought he still had more to do in the NRL. What happened to wanting to win multiple titles, or set records, or inherit captaincy?

The media should pressure players into achieving more. Hunt should have been vying for a half role all along. He should want control of the team and want to prove he can win on his own with out the help of a Lockyer or a Hodges. The same way artists are post-modern in their creations, players like Hunt should constantly be thinking about their legacy.

Myopically the NRL has let itself become the National Rights league. Players with power view it as a professional right opposed to what it should be—a professional privilege. As much as leagues rely on the players as the face of their operation, the players can never be bigger then the league, but that’s what has happened to the NRL.

The NRL may not be the financial crème de la crème of the rugby world but it is the toughest Rugby League competition in the world. Apart from the Super 14, French rugby union league and the prospect of playing in the Heineken Cup, the NRL is as tough a competition that rugby players will find. They should be marketing themselves as the premier competition in the world and be looking to sign international players who want to challenge themselves. It should mean something to win in this league.

3. Name the top 5 things I would want to hear read, recited, or performed by Tonie Carroll

There is no debate. Life is just better when this guy is in the league. He is like a mellow go-happy version of Michael Crocker; almost like that Robin William’s movie Jack—just a kid inside a man’s body. I expect he has a Tree-house, he still runs everywhere he goes, he is always good for two to three fart jokes at any training session, maybe still has a bunk bed, and at least once in his career Illa’Wayne had to talk him out of a hiding spot in the playground when he got upset.

I just want to hug him and take him home; he is the Hans Moleman to my Homer Simpson. If I

could make one change however, I would suggest he don a propeller hat at all times. One of those multi-coloured ones with no brim. If anyone’s cranium and smile were made for that hat, it was his.

This list is straight off the top of my head. I should have consulted with my crack squad of stoner friends. They would be first in line to watch a video of these hypothetical Tunza events (Youtube is a great utility but its popularity is driven by 15 to 24 year old stoners who have nothing better to do but watch clips of people breaking bones and singing the lyrics of Daft Punk songs with words written on their hands. Hey, it’s not their fault. Society never accounted for any youth friendly spaces, and as a result youth have turned to digital space for recreation. I’m not saying it’s right or wrong. My question is: Do we follow this youth movement or is it counter productive and post-modern? Is it promoting industrious creativity or simply supplying a new medium to rehash old ideas? I feel it’s a good thing. How else would I watch highlights of Shannon Walker burning QLD Cup players?):

A) A one-on-one interview with John Safran – that would be a LOT of wayward spit.

B) Shakespeare – he could butcher Shakespeare the same way FOX butchered the last 8 seasons of the Simpsons.

C) “One Week” by the Bare Naked Ladies – Forget the intricately threaded lyrics of the song. I would just be happy with a title and band name from Tunza (because I think that’s as far as we would get).

D) Bruno and / or Borat impersonations – if for nothing more then a “Yes Shmesh”. I think Tunza could rival Cohen for hairiest person to ever to don the Mankini.

E) Billy Jean – I had to throw it in here. The Motown performance to be specific. Its really a two-fa when you consider the dance moves and the singing. Like getting vegemite toast AND pancakes. I feel it would end badly though. He would hold the title as the only player to end his career because of a mis-executed moonwalk. Considering he is on his last legs, I feel like this would be a cool way to go out.

4. On a scale of 1 to peeing blood, how worried am I about the Broncos?

I’m one more mis-executed set away from filing a domestic abuse charge against myself. Why do I watch this team during the Origin stretch?

I know they won on Friday night but they aren’t the Broncos from seasons past. This 2009 team are like a band who has replaced their lead singer and their bassist. Sure they were huge, they play the same songs, and some of the original guys are still there, but it’s not the same.

I don’t want just Garfunkel and no Simon, the same way I don’t want just Lockyer and no defense, Wallace and no effort to create repeat sets, Hunt and no insertion of himself in the 1st receiver role, or the team and no scramble cover defense. Clinton just doesn’t shred like Petero did and Winterstein doesn’t sing like Kemp wailed. Its just not the same.

This season reminds me of the ’04 season. The Broncos had an inordinate amount of injuries, people were looking forward to the Tallis-less (and subsequently talented) era, the team didn’t really have an identity, and despite finishing 3rd on the ladder the Broncos were a class below the seasons front runners—the bad boy Bulldogs (who had Johnathan Thurston and Sonny Bill Williams on their bench), and the Rebel Alliance Roosters.

They will make the finals and push a team but they aren’t going anywhere this year. I can’t complain since they won a premiership 3 years ago but if they don’t re-sign Alex Glenn I’m calling that bikie that is out of work after his Zappia contract fell through.

---

Brisbane Sports Fan