So anty football media started 70 years ago. Most migrants from that era arrived from GB and later from Europe. Football was No 1 sport in those countries, there is no way that NRL, AFL and Cricket would have been adopted as No1 sports by new Australians unless media had something to do with it.

Anty! :)


I think you're just making this stuff up now. I can overlook the paranoid speculation, but seriously, cricket? You do realize cricket and RL come from England, right?

OK so why did the other two + AFL take off and Football did not?

I think it would be detrimental for football in Australia if it didn't have bandwagon support. The 'purists' are absolutely destroying the game in Australia. They're their own worst enemy.

I think if the A-League somehow raised their standards and started making staying in Australia attractive to home-grown superstars, then the game would take off. Unfortunately, this doesn't look like the case. As the league is not rich enough to keep them at home.

A) Australian football (Aussie Rules) was created before association football and had already established itself as the number 1 code in Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia long before British people actually spread the gospel of football.
B) Cricket and Rugby League are British sports and it was a lot easier adapting to the already established sports than to create new leagues themselves.

A lot simpler explanations than playing the media blame game.

And the only way this will is happen with more money, which comes from advertising, which comes from the media, which brings us back to the fact that the media has vested interests in keeping football away from the mainstream. Thank you for backing up the arguments against your comments.

lol. Nice little rant there.

So it's the only way for football to succeed in Australia, is it? Through undeserved/gift-rapped advertising and coverage?

Oh ye of little faith.

I would say that quite simply, football's success in Australia hinges on good performances by our national team. It's sad, but true. If the socceroos win the Asian Cup, football's popularity would get a lot better.

As far as backing up the arguments against my comments, that's simply not true.

Edited by socceroossupporter: 19/7/2010 02:33:51 PM

I agree with the first paragraph

Couple of things you should be aware of are:
- I've commented in two topics about it this apparent bias, thats all.
- I am not some apparent longterm troll, i am barely interested in posting on this forum as it is.
- I have spent most of my life in Melbourne, so am perfectly aware of the media coverage, i am only sent all over the place now because of work.

As for your rambling post, you have linked high AFL coverage with the assumption that proves there is a campaign against soccer, which is an illogical conclusion. Instead you need to provide evidence or reasoning to support an anti-soccer campaign if you believe it exists, until you do that its an unreasonable assumption.

The most logical explanation of course is AFL has marketed itself as a broad based high interest sport for many years and as a result has generated high mainstream interest which results in high media coverage by organisations whose aim it is to either sell their newspapers or increase their ratings.

How unfortunate for you that even once he's explained it quite simply and logically that you come up with this ramble as a response.

I've dealt with villaboy before A-class moron unfortunately that’s incapable of presenting a logical argument.

Your first paragraph is spot on, you only have to look as some of the morons on here that are so bitter and claim to support the game but want to preserve ethnic clubs and don’t support the a-league despite it being the best thing for the game ever. They seem to ignore that half of the melbourne victory’s members are actually AFL members as well, its as if its impossible for someone to like more than one sport.

Second paragraph also true, one of the main challenges the game will always have apart from the social aspects is that if you want to watch the *best* then you can just switch on the TV, its a similar problem with the NBL. However with a strong emphasis on youth development and a more broad based system i see no reason why we cant develop a solid niche market, but i dont think we will ever take over AFL or NRL because they are the best of what those sports have to offer.


Edited by kapow!: 19/7/2010 10:52:27 PM

Just a couple of points!

Totally agree the old soccer supporters are doing more damage to local Football than the anti-football media because of the fact they are not supporting the A League. They have their reasons but if they all turned up to A League games the stadiums would be full and the media would have to give it more air time.

Your criticism of the A League seems a little strange though. In one breath your saying the quality of the League is low because the best players are going overseas. I would think if that’s the case why are overseas clubs interested in our players if they are playing and a low quality league. You can’t have it both ways.

Also you guys are constantly asking for proof that the AFL is conspiring to stop the growth of Football. Simon Hill, a couple of 442 issues ago, talks about the how the AFL is putting pressure on Melbourne radio stations to reduce the Football content or they will take their advertising dollars elsewhere. If that’s not proof I don’t know what is!

One could be led to conclude bitterness also extends to those appearing to have ownership of a paranoia regarding ethic involvement in administration of clubs at all levels of Australian football, in using opportunism to retain the subject in regular debate.

One could also believe, and in my opinion be correct in doing so, the most fervent in their resentment of other Australian sporting leagues are the hard line aleague supporters along with specialist football media commentators and press journalists. Look no further for an example than the preoccupation in the football sections if this forum with the posting of every AFL fart, sneeze and snippet of gossip.

Personally, I've played many different sports and still like them all. In saying so, I also doubt very much I'm far removed from the majority of sports minded Australians. The politics of human nature and fear of ostracism from over zealous, self labeled 'purists' in different sports, can, and does give surety to many others following a somewhat myopic, exclusive vision of what the world should be.

The assertion an individual should-must-is morally bound, or any other label of choice, actively support the aleague to support Australian football, is ridiculous in the extreme. I support the league in mind but not body, as geography prevents the choice. However, I might not do so if opportunity allowed that choice when my interest and all my spare time is given to grass roots football.

Hell, on Saturday, just like the unseen countless others in grass roots football, myself and others were at the local sports fields 2 hours before kick off, setting up nets ect, packing up for an hour late in the day, and on Sunday attending the local RL games at the same field.

In the last few months our football club, together with the RL club officials, organised the playing of both the senior football and RL clubs to play on an irregular basis on adjoining pitches, on the same day, at the same time, to assist each other with an atmosphere similar to that of a sports carnival, attempt to attract more kids to participate in sport and thumb our respective noses at any perceived barriers. It's been very successful in both increased attendance and involvement.

In finishing, I will argue till I'm blue in the face, the countless people in this country involved in grass roots in a similar fashion, contribute to the sport to an invaluable level, highly disproportionate in a comparison with those that choose to purchase an regular aleague entry ticket or club membership. However, particular methods of active or even passive support for Australian football should not be discounted by downgrading their value with the labeling of their commitment and worth to the sport.
The colour doesn't matter, nor should it.

Edited by skeptic: 20/7/2010 12:05:05 PM

Edited by skeptic: 20/7/2010 11:22:13 PM

I thought crowds at the NSL were crap any way so would it make a difference?

Secondly to rebut your statement I can tell you that in Melbourne many spectators at NSL matches are following A-League.

I don't know about Sydney, but isn't there a lot of comment about how far it is for people in the football heartland of West Sydney to go to SFS. Thats why there is high expectations for Rovers.

In Brisbane I would think most of the 3,000 souls that watched the strikers are at Roar matches. Once the bank extended them credit for a season pass that is.:d

Do we need to mention Adelaide?

So Perth must really be the problem as their crowds are down since the A-League started.


Its the ones who turned up to watch Everton or LA Galaxy or 60K to watch NZ at the MCG and their probably not the types to post here on 442.
This is the hidden market Buckley talks about and the one franchises like Melbourne Heart are supposed to attract not the "old supporters".

Edited by Arthur: 20/7/2010 03:50:14 PM

I am not the one people call "Mr football" dickhead.

I've already provided evidence based criteria for positing that most media outlets in Australia give less column space to football than they should.

The column space argument derived in the local rag owned by Murdoch is empirically verifiable data, which is irrefutable. It was gathered over a month at a time of the year when AFL it was in abeyance.

A year or two ago, Richard Colebatch (economics editor) , writing in The Age, collated statistics of 5-14 year olds playing sport. He found that as many young Australians played soccer, as AFL, League, Union and touch football combined. At the same time he concluded there was little extrapolation to media coverage for the sport given its high popularity.

Moreover, in the Sweeney report, it found soccer was only just behind swimming, tennis, AFL and cricket as Australia's most popular sports according to suveys of adults in the six capiatl cities.

I think this presents a compelling case for what I've previously advanced.

Kapow, where are your alternative sources substantiating that there is no bias towards AFL?

Your statements’ are accurate

Don’t worry about arguing with the Bogans in here they are like the Bogans out there

As an aside the bogan crash Craddick ( sic ) stated on the back page fox sports program last night “ isn’t it funny how ALL of the soccer stories we put on our program always have an element of problems ( i.e. player attacking referee in south America )”

Another fucking Bogan

I sincerely believe that they believe their own hype =p~

Decentric

Not that I care too much, just thought I would let you know that I am not Kapow!

Not having read the whole thread, I probably lean to his side that the media will run stories that ultimately appeal to their readership, or will attract more readers.

Any notion that the media is somehow biased towards the AFL, while at the same time acting against its own commercial interest, is an extremely silly notion.

If you want to make money, you go and cover the biggest comp in the land.

Yours truly

Mister Football

Edited by Mister Football: 21/7/2010 05:30:01 PM

It is pretty obvious that Kapow! isn't Pips - thought it was a strange conclusion to reach, Decentic is normally better than that.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Hi bse

I know that you really love the best game in the world ;)

Thought you promised ](*,)

Barkly StBS and all his multis posted in the one afternoon](*,)
The Edude of 442:oops:

He's only come here because the highlight of his life-the anti football sub forum at big foody(with 400 threads-about 200 started by him)has been moved to the back blocks as it no longer has any relevance at all with Barkly repeating himself again and again and again.
Hes so popular that he started his own blog and after a few years hes already had 1 person favourite his site.
Incredibly popular bloke

I dont need sources to substantiate that there is no bias towards AFL because i'm not making a case for it, infact they probably are biased towards them, but its because they’re trying to milk every dollar out of their viewers or readers. That was the basis of my point, the logical explanation for high AFL coverage is due to high interest levels from the public, assuming there is a anti-soccer campaign doesn’t make sense.

One of the things you might be confusing an anit-soccer media campaign with is AFL or specialised sport writers coming out with pot shots at the game during world cups for instance, their motivation would be because their job is supported by a strong AFL industry and because they are somewhat foreign to the sport. Those sorts of snipes are not consistent with a media campaign against the sport.


As for your points:
-High sport participation levels does not mean there is high interest and therefore high media coverage, some sports are spectator sports others are participant sports or both. For instance netball has high participation but low spectator interest.

-High AFL content in columns doesn’t mean anything, people in victoria are interested in AFL and whats going on.

There is a lot of upside to our game considering we haven’t even been selling it in the right format for any more than 5 years, but we shouldnt be blaming others or expecting a free ride, we'll get coverage when we earn it.

You might want to tell the 3.4 million that went to NRL games in 2009 that it is a TV sport and they should stay home.

Just to remind you again... your game, AFL, is only a minor sport in the two states that make up 55% of Australia's population.



Edited by gyfox: 22/7/2010 12:56:57 AM

The person who quoted my post was arguing that sydney FC got higher crowds than some rugby league teams so therefore should of recieved more news coverage, i was simply pointy out that crowds do not represents RL's support levels as it has a high TV viewing audience, therefore high news coverage. If you disagree with that then you are wrong. If you thought it was a shot at RL then you were also wrong.


Edited by kapow!: 22/7/2010 01:43:52 AM

I was simply pointing out the fact that you were incorrect in saying that the NRL is not a spectator sport and that their crowds are irrelevant.

Kapow/Misterfootball/barklystreebullshit/skeptic/socceroossupporter
just bugger off back to big foody,or alternately go back to your blog where you have a massive loyal following of 1 person

If you still insist with the ridiculous notion i'm a multi of a poster i consistently and fervently disagree with in my posts, you are either a twerp with little skill of comprehension, or a one of the many teens whose balls are yet to drop. Or maybe it's a combination of those, together your oft displayed poor literacy skills and inability to debate that leads you to attempt to destroy the credibility of the arguer rather than the argument.

What do you do when someone disagrees with you when in your company? Grow some brain cells and debate like a man, tell them they're opinion doesn't matter because they're in disguise or lock yourself in your room and have a tantrum? I'd tend to think mummy gave little girt his own way far too often.

if that is a photograph of Misterfootball/barklystreetend then he looks surprisingly normal :-k