Yes, one would have to ask how anybody, for whatever reason, could resist having the logo of a booze company splashed all over his sports attire.

After all, as sonofgloin pints out:

"....He is hypocritical and attempting to bring religion into Australian sport is despicable."

While paid endorsement by booze companies in sport is just good old ocker common sense.

Globalised world, guys.....guess what? If the bloke has talent, then he'll be employed.

Funny old world : )

Poirot>> Yes, one would have to ask how anybody, for whatever reason, could resist having the logo of a booze company splashed all over his sports attire.<<

P the point is he will take the cash from the self same "booze" company, but he won't wear the logo, then makes a political statement out of it....and that is what his actions are....a political statement. If a double standard in that lot escapes you Poirot, so does reality my dear interlocutor.

Surely, you have this entirely back-to-front, sonofgloin.

>>...the point is he will take the cash from the self same "booze" company, but he won't wear the logo<<

In the world of commerce, it is the piper who calls the tune. If the sponsors had a problem with his decision, a quiet word in the ear of Cricket Australia would have been quickly transmitted to the selection committee, and would have solved the problem immediately. As it turned out, far from being remotely concerned, Carlton & United Breweries were quite happy to pay the cash to a logo-free player.

Quite possibly, you may ponder, because the inclusion of a Moslem player in the team would deliver their VB brand welcome additional media coverage. And as you are proving here on this thread, his presence in the team was a publicity gift that keeps on giving, despite the fact that Fahwad Ahmed himself was almost invisible on the cricket pitch itself.

Starting this thread says far more about your visceral intolerance of other cultures than about one cricketer's alleged "hypocrisy".

PERICLES>> Quite possibly, you may ponder, because the inclusion of a Moslem player in the team would deliver their VB brand welcome additional media coverage.
As it turned out, far from being remotely concerned, Carlton & United Breweries were quite happy to pay the cash to a logo-free player<<

As if the brewery had any other option Pericles, to stand by the right to brand the uniforms regarding this muslim provocateur would be commercial and perhaps personal fatwah territory, not to mention the lefty press.

If we take your incredibly immediate evaluation further, how do you think they would react if all their branding was removed from the series? Not sponsoring I would proffer, and that is the extension of your ridiculous assertion that the brewery is as pleased as punch at the prospect.

Pericles>> Starting this thread says far more about your visceral intolerance of other cultures than about one cricketer's alleged "hypocrisy".<<

This statement embodies the passive aggressive deception of civility ……Why don’t you just call me racist Pericles…

Did you note the theme being about a double standard rather than a religious or political issue. Did you peruse where I mentioned the christian New Zealand cricketer and my assertion that he should have been dismissed from their national team….nah….racist….that will do. Thanks P……..

More bluster, sonofgloin.

>>As if the brewery had any other option Pericles, to stand by the right to brand the uniforms regarding this muslim provocateur would be commercial and perhaps personal fatwah territory, not to mention the lefty press<<

Do you imagine for one moment that the views of the sponsor would not be sought well before any selection was made?

The government, who rushed through his citizenship, could not possibly have overlooked the fact that he was Muslim.

It surely cannot have escaped anyone - even folk as dense as the Australian selectors - that Muslims don't drink.

And even a body as impenetrably incompetent as Cricket Australia would have been aware that VB is a brand of beer, and would have managed - possibly, I grant you, after a great deal of head-scratching and gurgling noises - to join the dots between the key facts.

All this was already widely known, even before parliament made him a gratuitous exception to the normal naturalization process.

Your idea that this was an individual's cynical act of religious exploitation is therefore both illogical and untenable.

Incidentally, Bruce Murray was one of three New Zealand cricketers who refused to play on a Sunday, Bryan Yuile and Vic Pollard being the others.

>>Did you note the theme being about a double standard rather than a religious or political issue.<<

Actually, I did.

Which is why I highlighted the double standards of the sponsors, who on the one hand insisted that the team should carry their logo, but on the other were quite happy to allow Fawad Ahmed to play, sans logo, so they could milk that extra bit of publicity from their actions.

>>Did you peruse where I mentioned the christian New Zealand cricketer and my assertion that he should have been dismissed from their national team….nah….racist….that will do.<<

As I said, you can't "dismiss" someone who was unavailable for selection. Which rather exposes this rider of yours as a somewhat pathetically smelly red herring, with which to to distract us from your blatantly anti-Muslim stance.

What would you call it?

The idea of continuing to use an alcohol company as a sponsor of a cricket team, but yet get upset about how alcohol plays a part in causing violence and bad behaviour amongst cricket fans at the grounds, is pure hypocrisy in itself.

I have no problem with anyone refusing to wear a brewery logo on a sporting team.
It is this sort of sponsorship, and the dark shadows of racism that continues to show that a now very secular Australia is still living in the past ...