Sport’s Feudal System?

The Feudal system was something that many of a certain age learned about at school in history lessons.

It was a social and political system in the middle ages in which landholders provided land to tenants in exchange for their loyalty and service. In simple terms a lord was a noble who held land, a vassal was a person who was granted possession of the land by the lord. The land was known as a fief. In exchange for the use of the fief and protection by the lord, the vassal would provide some sort of service to the lord.

The Feudal system ended in Europe between the 1500’s and 1800’s depending on which country’s history you look at. Over a period of time the Governments of the day had been trying to reduce the hold that the nobility had over their workers. Even when the system was ended there were still remnants of the system in place for many years.

What has this to do with sport? It would appear the answer is quite a lot.

As it would appear that the vestiges of a feudal system still exist in many sports today. The Lords or nobles being those who administer the sport, the vassals being those who play for the lord’s and represent their nation. Are they not the ones providing a service to the “lords” and generating the income that the “lords” benefit from?

If that is a too big a stretch? Up until the 1500’s the vassal was expected to answer calls to military service on behalf of the lord. How often is sport described in military terms?

In a more real situation are we not seeing athletes today being subjugated by those administering their sport?

Some will argue that for their own protection, athletes are not allowed to offer up political or social opinion on social media or in interviews while contracted to the sport’s governing body. How many normal employers have such restrictions on their staff?

Probably the most public example of the fall out from such a situation was that between former Wallaby Israel Folau and Rugby Australia. Which ultimately Rugby Australia settled out of court.

What was interesting, and a key point that has often been missed was, again revealed in Nel Minchin’s documentary “Folau.” When Rugby Australia announced that as a sport it was supporting the push to legalise gay marriage in Australia, the powers that be failed to consult the players. The individuals who are the public face of rugby in Australia, those who serve the game and are most actively associated with it.

Samu Kerevi stated in the documentary following the then CEO Bill Pulver announcing Rugby Australia supported same-sex marriage that “no one came up to us and asked us if we support it, you know, no one asked us they just said Rugby Australia supports gay marriage.”

All of the players were expected to accept and support such a decision. Even if their personal views differed from the management that made such a call.

We saw at the T20 World Cup The South African Cricket Board try to force players to take the knee. Quentin de Kock as a result withdrew from the game. The reason he explained in a subsequent press conference was that he felt that his rights had been taken away. As explained in Crossing the Line – Politics and Sport he had a point as the gesture has shifted a long way from what it was originally intended to signify.

Before games in many sports you will see players take the knee. Some of their team mates do not. That is their choice. What would be interesting to know are the reasons why those who take the knee are taking it and what they think the gesture signifies, and also why those who opt not to have chosen to remain standing. Neither individual is wrong, and both are entitled to their view and opinion.

So here is a very public gesture that many sporting bodies will allow, however should an athlete speak out on the issues that their sport has opted to support they will in many cases be spoken to, and told not to. Is there really a difference?

One of the big issues, and we are seeing this in Australia at this time as the Indigenous Voice is being proposed. The Voice will see Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Australian Constitution, and if voted on by the people of Australia will see a body created, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. The Voice will be representative of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, gender-balanced and include youth, and will we are told give independent advice to the Parliament and Government.

While many are keen to see the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders finally acknowledged in the Constitution, there are some who are concerned despite assurances from the Government that the Voice will have the power to veto certain decisions or policies. In Federal Parliament there are many who have aired their views and concerns against the model being proposed. These are individuals within a political party, who have been allowed to speak and air their views and concerns.

We have seen a number of sports come out and support the Voice. Football Australia, Tennis Australia, the NRL, The Australian Olympic Committee as well as the AFL and Rugby Australia have all come out in support of The Voice. One would hope that the latter has this time consulted all staff and had a vote before making such an announcement.

However, it raises the question should sporting bodies be coming out publicly and supporting such political agendas? After all these sports are supposed to be inclusive of all sections of the community, and that includes people who may be against such decisions. Each individual is entitled to have their own views and opinions.

As mentioned on the last podcast if a sport is going to post Happy Easter or Christmas, Hanukkah or Eid messages on their social media pages, then surely, especially as so many espouse being inclusive and promoting equality, they need to be sure to recognise all religious festivals in order to be inclusive and equal to all playing members.

There are thousands of people who play sport in Australia. That pay fees each week for the privilege. While it is unreasonable and impractical to suppose that the Governing body contact each individual before backing a Political agenda, surely they should not be offering such support without a consensus of opinion. Many would argue that they simply should not be getting involved at all.

If the individuals or even the clubs they play for actually had more of a say in the running of the sport, for example had a vote when it came to appointing board members it may be more acceptable. At present there is a very strong feeling amongst many along the lines of ‘who do these people think they are, making such a call on our behalf?’ (Being Democratic Is the Right Thing).

Some cynics have stated that the only reason these sports come out with such statements is to toady up to the Government of the day in the hope of financial favours down the track when funding is allocated. If so that is even worse, as suddenly the support lacks genuine empathy.

So through such actions are we not witnessing a feudal system in sport? A system whereby the Lords – we won’t call them noble men – that run the sport expect the vassals, those who pay fees them to play as opposed to farm, to fight for the cause they believe in no questions asked?

A glance at the constitutions of these sports and the ‘objects’ of their role, in other words what they have been created to do, one finds that not one is given the authority to take a political stance on behalf of its members. In fact such a stance is so far removed from the role that one wonders why or how they have become involved.

Some have the following or similar words written into their constitutions, that discrimination of any kind is strictly prohibited and punishable by disciplinary sanction, including suspension or expulsion. Yet the minute as a Governing body you take a side in a political debate you can be seen to be discriminating against those whose opinions differ from that stance.

The best option is to do what you are there to do which is administer sport and stay away from politics.

It may also be wise to remember the words of the writer Ayn Rand, “The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.”