A Dynata poll across all age groups has found that 61% agreed that sporting codes have become too politically correct and Woke.

62% agreed that it is wrong for professional athletes to use their positions for personal political causes.

Yes ttbn, we admire most sports people for their ability & dedication to their sport. In most cases we are not exactly impressed with their brain power, particularly those in contact sports who can't stay out of trouble in night clubs & pubs.

I don't mind what their opinions are, they are entitled to these, but privately. Once silly players think their opinion on any subject is of any importance to the general public they are beyond useful to their sport.

Privately held opinions are fine, but trying their sport to push ideology makes them less than useful. Voicing opinions on social media should not effect their sporting activities, but grandstanding using their sport should not be tolerated.

62% agreed that it is wrong for professional athletes to use their positions for personal political causes.
ttbn,
62% is obviously not enough. If we had a National Service it'd be close to 100% who'd believe that.

Dear Hasbeen,

How's it going old cock? Good?

You opinined: "Once silly players think their opinion on any subject is of any importance to the general public they are beyond useful to their sport."

My footy team the Cats decided as a playing group not to accept gambling sponsorship nor pokies in their club facilities.

They have turned their back on a lot of dollars as a result.

To me that is completely reasonable and within their rights and I fully support them.

Under your regime they should have shut up and just copped it.

Or on a purely commercial basis they are selling their 'brand' as players when they agree to sponsorship from a company. If they don't want their brand associated with a particular company then they should retain that right.

Why do you want to strip them of those rights? It is not as if they set about denigrating a group of people but rather just quietly went about sticking to their guns.

Good on them.

Good to see 16 Aussie players (Socceroos) from our World Cup team call out Qatar. They have issued a strong collective statement of protest over the human rights record of Qatar, the country which will controversially host the tournament.

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2022/oct/27/socceroos-make-collective-statement-to-speak-out-about-qatars-human-r

Hasbeen

Yes. With all due respect to their sporting ability, a low IQ seems to be the norm. Particularly dumb are the netballers who lost $15 million because they didn't like what Lang Hancock said years ago. What he said about some aborigines was unacceptable, but it has nothing to do with his daughter, who is very generous to aborigines. Perhaps she will give some of it to to Cows for Cambodia, which she also supports. Unlike privileged netballers, the Cambodian families appreciate her help.

Other fairly low profile sports she backs are, women's swimming; women's beach volleyball; women's rowing, and women's synchronised swimming.

Bloody idiots is a fair description of the netballers.

I note that Steve Waugh thinks that that other idiot, Cummins should be given the flick.

Are you self taught, or did someone really try to teach you to understand what you read SR. I guess you were too busy planning your response to have time to understand what was written.

If you had any understanding you would see I fully agree with a club or national organisation setting their policies. It is then up to the individual players to accept these policies or go play elsewhere.

If players want input into policy it is up to them to get onto management committees & do the organising & financing work, not grandstand from the playing field paid for by others.

Our local sports club has Little Athletics, Soccer, Net ball & Equestrian clubs at our grounds. We were only too pleased to accept gambling industry grants for a new mower, & equipment for athletics & soccer, it gives our kids something almost like city kids get, which with only parent funding would not be possible.

Perhaps our equestrian experience has taught us not to look a gift horse in the mouth.

Woke offers nothing to improve the lives of ordinary people; and much of what it advocates subverts the norms and conventions which form the backbone of a cohesive civil society.

Its original use was to identify someone (supposedly) having a sharp political awareness of social and racial injustices.

Wokeness has come to mean intolerance of such a hugely growing list of absurdities and trivial, pointless things, to the point where it is now utterly ridiculous.

Many people infected by wokeness have become a bunch of constantly outraged, illiberal lunatics, who won’t tolerate anything that doesn't fit their savagely prohibitive agenda.

Dear Hasbeen,

Oh I have no doubt you would have been holding your hand out for gifts from the gambling industry without blinking an eye.

And the industry relies on unthinking people like you to give them a conduit to our kids.

"The majority of children aged 8–16 years were able to recall the names of sports betting brands. Children aged 12–16 years, boys and children who play or attend AFL matches were more likely to recall brand names than younger children, girls and children who play other sports codes.

Over three-quarters of children (n = 115, 75.7%) correctly recalled the name of at least one sports betting brand. Approximately one in four children (n = 40, 26.3%) were able to identify four or more sports betting brands."
http://responsiblegambling.vic.gov.au/documents/67/Research-report-child-parent-recall-gambling-sponsorship.pdf

Which is exactly the kind of targeting you are enabling.

"Sponsorship and branding within sports can inuence product recall and enhance the audience’s attitude towards that sponsor. This is especially seen with young children, who have not yet developed the cognitive ability to critically appraise marketing and the reasoning behind it."
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/304778489_Sponsorship_of_junior_sport_development_programs_in_Australia

Of course the reason why gambling companies are so heavily advertising on major sport billboards at grounds is it enables them to circumvent the rules around direct TV advertising by gambling companies before 8:30pm.

Congratulations mate for doing your part to provide these companies with the problem gamblers of the future. Your cheque is in the mail

Hi Steele, I'm sure good old Hassy would like a few quid from tabacco sponsors for the kids if possible. While he's at it maybe the alcohol mob could chip in with a few more bucks for the little nippers. A win win situation according to Hassy.

It should be keeping Sport out of politics, particularly the mentality that fosters Sport !
And, whilst on the subject of Sport, there are some pretty mindless activities being followed & pushed under the name of Sport ! Does anyone know how much funding is provided for "Sport" here ? My guess it's way more than funding for need !

Any citizen has the right to speak his or her mind. Those who are prominent in different areas get listened to more than those of us on online opinion who mostly talk to each other. That's the way it is.

david f

It seems to me that "any citizen (does not) have the right to speak his or her mind" when they are sacked or otherwise forced out of a job or otherwise excluded or abused for using that 'right'.

A right exists only if there are no adverse consequences; if there is no punishment or abuse for exercising the supposed right.

Even now, the Northern Territory government is preparing a Bill that, if passed, would see the always accepted rights - 2,000 years worth - of Christian schools removed. Not just rights would be removed, but actual Christian beliefs will be officially nullified by mere politicians, who want to remove one group's rights in order to give another group rights, when all that second group has to do is stay away from something they do not believe in.

Dear ttbn,

You wrote: "Even now, the Northern Territory government is preparing a Bill that, if passed, would see the always accepted rights - 2,000 years worth - of Christian schools removed. Not just rights would be removed, but actual Christian beliefs will be officially nullified by mere politicians, who want to remove one group's rights in order to give another group rights, when all that second group has to do is stay away from something they do not believe in."

There has not been 2,000 years of Christian belief in Australia. Did Christians feel the Aborigines had any right to their religion when they forced them into mission stations and put Christianity on them making them abandon their own religions? If the Aborigines in the Northern Territory abandoned the alien Christian religion forced on them it seems only good and right.

Whatever. You have your opinion and you will stick to it. Fair enough.

Mindless Sport translates into mindless Politicians !

david f,
I wonder how you'd deal with humans who have no concept of a wider World ?
How would you deal with giving them commodities you thought would help them but ended up getting thrown back at you. Then, when you realised the futility of trying to help you stop & many years later their descendants accuse you of denying them these commodities & of being racist for no longer providing.
Keep in mind that you would have been shipped here against your will, had to fight against your will just to survive & in the process these humans drew the shorter straw !
Keep in mind you wouldn't have had any education only the sense & desire to survive. You survive & your descendants are then paying all their lives for all this & now you're the most recent descendant & you're still paying humans who'd have no concept of what went on if you hadn't told them ?
Also keep in mind Australia was a frontier environment in the days of no enlightenment & definitely no indoctrination facilities until you came along & had people build them for you at slave rates !

Dear Indyvidual,

What are you talking about?

david f,
About people who have the benefit of hindsight & knowing of the past, opportunistically judging people who didn't have the luxury of knowing the future is right-out wrong & hypocritical !
The perpetrators (mostly ignorant) of the past & the victims (mostly ignorant) of the past are history. So, whatever is happening today should be scrutinised not what happened generations ago.
We can't change the past , we can only work for a common future & disregard those who prevent a good common future by tearing at the scabs of the past purely for personal gain at the expense & efforts of others ! Do you not see the hypocrisy ?

We can try to make up for some of the injustices of the past. The English took the land of the Aborigines, forced Christianity (an alien superstition) on them and murdered many of them in the process. Australia can try to make up for the wrongs that have been committed. Aboriginal remains and artifacts have been restored to them. That is part of the process of atonement. The past is past, and those occupying the land are not going to leave, but we try to make up for some of the past. I don't see the hypocrisy in examining the past and trying to come to terms with it. I am an immigrant to Australia, and when I read of its bloody history I see that a great wrong has been done. Germany under Adenauer has tried to make up to the Jews for the Nazi years. Those who suffered under the Nazis are mostly dead, but the German government has tried to do something for their descendants. It is right that Australia should in like manner do the same. The first war Australia fought was for the dispossession of the Aborigines. Since I have been living in Australia I have become aware of what happened in the past and am horrified by it.

We can try to make up for some of the injustices of the past.
david f,
Yes I agree and, from what I can that has been done !

typo- should obviously be 'from what I can see'

david f,
I totally & unreservedly agree that compensation is due from those benefitting ! The big question is, when has enough compensation been provided ?
Three generations ? Five ? Ten ?
When & what is the cut-off moment for compensation ? When there are people born in an invaded land long after invasion who had no part in the invasion just as there are the people who, as the descendants of the invaded, haven't been invaded ?
In my book I'd say compensation is due for having lost property which had been acquired by personal effort & freedom of movement as far as the transport available in the days of invasion has allowed people to travel.
I'd welcome the opinion of others interested in moving on & letting wounds heal instead of opportunistically tearing at scabs !