The Australian Football League (AFL) has been at the forefront of progressive social change. However, when it decided to take a stand against gender-based violence, it missed the mark.
Before the start of last weekend’s matches, the AFL devoted a minute’s silence to the victims of gender violence. The decision stemmed from widespread community, political and media condemnation, and a call for action to end violence against women.
A surge in murders of women prompted rallies across many Australian cities at the end of April. The death toll of Australian women to that point had reached 29.
In a media statement, ahead of round eight matches, the AFL committed to bringing players, senior coaches and umpires “in[to] the centre of the ground to form a linked circle and pay a silent tribute to those women who have lost their lives”.
Read more: Not all men, maybe, but sadly, it’s always all women
Behind this gesture was the AFL’s acute antenna for savvy marketing packaged around a socially-progressive social cause. It aligned with the Demetriou-McLachlan agenda of promotion using football as an important driver of social change.
This is particularly effective in more socially-progressive cities, such as Melbourne, given the role Australian rules football has, and continues to play, in the city’s culture.
The symbolic dimension of the gesture meant the AFL was again on the front foot regarding an important social issue that demanded institutional, cultural, and behavioural change.
By paying its silent tribute to the “fallen” across all games, the AFL was sending a message to fans and the wider Australia community that women have the right to feel safe in public and at home.
But did the AFL overshoot the mark?
In making its stand, the AFL clumsily revealed it hadn’t addressed its skeletons in the closet.
In the aftermath of releasing a statement on the issue, cracks started to show. As the AFL was making its one-minute stand, the New South Wales Football Hall of Fame was about to recognise and enshrine players, coaches, umpires, administrators, and volunteers.
Among the 100 inaugural inductees was Wayne Carey. A former North Melbourne captain and premiership player, Carey had a much-heralded playing career mixed with a chequered off-field record.
As a player, he was convicted of sexual assault. He left North Melbourne for Adelaide in controversy after an in-club affair, and was subsequently charged in the US for domestic violence and assault of a former partner.
But football administrators and fans are a forgiving bunch, especially to past champions. Carey was admitted into the AFL’s Hall of Fame despite his record. But his elevation to “Legend” status in the NSW Hall of Fame was a “going” too far.
Given the AFL’s newfound commitment to eradicating gender violence, Carey’s elevation wasn’t a good look, given it coincided with the weekend it was making a stand against gender-based violence.
Andrew Dillon, the AFL CEO, intervened and blocked it from happening.
Read more: De Goey, the Pies, and the AFL’s patriarchy problem
Seemingly, this single incident demonstrated the AFL meant business when it came to gender-based violence. But further cracks emerged.
In a pre-round press conference, the Essendon coach, Brad Scott, suggested another gender-violence culprit, North Melbourne’s Tarryn Thomas, deserved a second chance.
Thomas is serving an 18-match suspension after the AFL found him guilty of multiple acts of inappropriate behaviour towards women. After being suspended, North Melbourne terminated his contract – and rightly so.
What escaped Scott was Thomas’ track record and inability to change his behaviour, despite considerable efforts by North Melbourne.
A chequered history
This isn’t an isolated incident. The AFL has a chequered history when it comes to sexism and the prevention of violence against women. Indeed, in 2009, then-Carlton president John Elliott boasted of paying “hush money” to women who had brought rape allegations against players.
Given such misogynism, it’s little wonder the AFL implemented a “Respect and Responsibility” policy after a series of sexual assaults and intimate-partner domestic abuse in the 2000s.
As Dyson and Corboz (2016) highlighted, the AFL’s response was more concerned with reputational damage than addressing cultural change within its institution.
There have been occasional flutters of progress.
In 2017, two senior AFL executives, Simon Lethlean and Richard Simkiss, tendered their resignations after conducting inappropriate relationships with junior staff. But their mea culpas couldn’t mask the inconvenient fact that men’s football has an attitudinal problem with women.
Football is part of the problem
Let’s cut to the chase. The abuses of the Careys and Thomases, and Benny Hill-type dalliances of senior AFL executives, cannot be washed away with a minute of silence for the victims of gender-based violence.
Football is part of the problem, and the victims deserve more than a momentary piece of brand-protection theatre.
This reflects a body that seems more concerned with virtue signalling than committing substantively to address the systemic sexism that exists in football and contributes to gender-based violence.
Read more: Securing women’s lives: Taking men’s lethal violence against women seriously
The minute of silence highlights the contradictions that exist between the symbolic gesturing of a supposedly inclusive organisation, and the messier, more disparate realities of the actions and long-term commitments needed to address gender-based violence.
This requires working at all levels of the game to address damaging gender norms, perpetuated within sport, that are key drivers of gender-based violence.
As the Victorian state government's comprehensive Guidelines for addressing violence against women: Taking action through community sport illustrates, addressing gender-based violence using sport requires a whole-of-sport approach, and both commitment and action from sporting leaders at all levels.
The AFL must address its own inequities
It’s not the first time the AFL has engaged in virtue signalling and “brand” promotion by jumping on important social issues.
If the AFL wants to be commended as an inclusive sporting organisation, it needs to do more than simply engage in symbolic gestures that aim to capture a more socially-progressive market. It needs to put its money where its mouth is.
If the AFL is to be a leader in eliminating gender-based violence, it needs to address its own inequities. Get rid of football’s discriminatory glass ceiling. Introduce pay parity across men’s and women’s competitions, as has happened in cricket.
Further, acknowledge that masculine cultures perpetuate discriminatory and damaging social norms. Promote programs such as Carlton Respects, which, in partnership with OurWatch, delivers school initiatives to prevent violence against women. Invest in programs that promote positive cultural change, and gender equity and respect.
Whether as supporters, players, administrators or volunteers, women are crucial to football’s continuing success.
A culture of inclusion and respect requires more than a moment’s silence. The AFL must remove the boys’ club barriers that still pervade football. Then it can rightfully claim that the minute’s silence meant more than virtue signalling.
