Why I took a break from Australian football - Part 4: Media and discourse

Part four. Now we come to the section of this series where I explain what precisely about the coverage and discourse surrounding Australian football led me into a brief exile and the key differences I noticed with the other sporting landscapes I follow. I will say things that are probably controversial, that will probably ruffle feathers, and that you will probably disagree with. And that's fine because debating is good. Well, in most communities, I think it is, but it might be doing more harm than good in our football community. And that's essentially what this part of the series is about.

Well, let's just get straight into it, shall we? Over the past five years, being more immersed in the Australian football community and things like 'Sokkah Twitter', I don't think I've ever come across such a large swathe of people who seem almost determined to pick out the negatives in nearly every subject matter in a sport.

Now, before I continue, I want to be clear that I'm a) mainly addressing this to all of us who are rusted-on supporters of the sport, not casuals who tune into the odd Socceroos/Matildas game, and b) not really talking about others in the media but those who are fans of the sport and regularly contribute to the discourse surrounding it.

I also want to be clear that I have probably been an occasional perpetrator of many of the frustrations I will describe here about discourse. So, I am not blameless, but I'd like to think I have a degree of self-awareness.

With many of the arguments/observations I will discuss in this part, I could accompany about 20 (or more) different examples across the past five years that would easily support what I'm saying. Let's first take this idea of picking out the negatives in everything. Well, I've got quite a recent example I can pluck out. The Socceroos defeated Japan 1-0 to essentially book their spot at a sixth straight World Cup last week.

It genuinely felt like there was a growing contingent pushing this narrative that because Australia didn't have 80% possession and wasn't knocking it about like they're prime Barcelona under Pep Guardiola that we should all have been fucking miserable about it. It's not the first time a Socceroos win has been discussed like that, and sadly, I don't think we're close to it being the last.

Or, probably, one of the dumbest, most stupid topics that regularly fits this bill: the often needless yet incessant complaining and arguing about Socceroos squad selections (many of which usually have little impact on the results that follow).

Should you feel like complaining about a Socceroos win or squad selection, then honestly, that is your decision, and you can go ahead and do that. The point of this is not for me to become a thought police on Australian football. And, as I'm going to talk about later in this piece, there's an accountability that is still created by such discourse, which is essential.

But I'd also ask you: What exactly will make you happy? If you know what that is, no problem; I'm all ears. If you don't, maybe you're just complaining because you can, or in Australian football, it has somehow become the 'cool' thing to do.

Again, I'm not blameless either. I mentioned the idea of guilt in part two, and perhaps some of that guilt during my exodus from the game can be attributed to feeling disappointed at sometimes contributing to the discourse in such a fashion.

---

You can read Part 2 of this series here: Why I took a break from Australian football - Part 2: Enjoy your lunch

---

I remember when I went to Unite Round back in November. I was talking to someone involved in football about the scheduling and how it was ridiculous that the APL put the Perth Glory fixture in a Friday twilight timeslot when it would mean most of their fanbase back in WA wouldn't be able to watch the game. This person asked me what matches were on. Without even thinking, the first thing I did was slander the scheduling and express anger about the disrespect the APL was showing towards Glory fans. Second, I mentioned how it was great that the Sydney Derby had clear air in the scheduling the next day so everyone could watch it and pack out Allianz. But you see how, without even noticing, I just immediately discussed the negative before the positive?

The point here is that it's less about the issue of picking out the negatives and more about amplifying them to the point where those negatives define particular topics. When this happens frequently, you can't be surprised why so many feel pessimistic about the state of the game. They are often consuming negativity about it.

The second point is that negativity seems to air more on complaining than caring. Take the discourse around the Socceroos mentioned above. The negativity around performances and squad selections has seemed particularly prevalent over the past two managers. Wow, I wonder why that has been the case. Could it be, and I could be way off base here, that so many allow their general dislike for Graham Arnold or Tony Popovic to consume them so much to the point that you would rather sit there complaining about their tactics and squad selections, or even worse, would rather your own country lose just so you're proven right, or they get sacked?

Some people supposedly 'support' the Socceroos but are probably livid about how well Popovic has done since being appointed. Did I think he would do this well? No. Does that mean I'm going to still totally abuse the guy, even when he's winning, just because I didn't like the appointment? Fuck no. This is my country, and they're winning, so who cares? If you can't separate those things, I'm sorry, but you are hurting the game.

I had a similar revelation recently when assessing how I supported Chelsea over the past three seasons. I'd become so angry with the ownership that I'd let it impact enjoyment about wins too much. Managers, owners, players, and administrators come and go, but the organisation you support will always be there.

Or, take a much more serious example. And this shit really pisses me off. Although I was not reading anything Australian football-related during my break, there were times when I'd still scroll Twitter and see news items here and there or be sent articles and just see their headlines. So, I was well aware of the reporting concerning Western United's dire financial situation and what seemingly felt like they were on the verge of liquidation.

But because so many in the community still can't put to rest their frustration over Western United being allowed to have a license in the first place (it's been fucking seven years or whatever, guys, they and Macarthur probably aren't going anywhere), I barely saw anyone actually saying anything that drew attention to the fact that there was a genuine human part to this story. Again, when I say anyone, I refer to anyone outside our little media contingent. Players and staff could have easily lost their jobs. That's an issue beyond football. And guess what? Just because many don't think a Western or Macarthur should exist, that doesn't change the fact that even those two clubs still have some fans who genuinely care about them.

But more to the point, in the case of those expansion narratives, we obviously all can realise and understand now that it was a significant mistake to allow those two entities to be given a license. But must we continue to keep harping on and on about it? What are we going to achieve? Do we have a time machine that will take us back so we can negate the award of the licenses? If you're in this boat, you're just complaining. Also, if either of those clubs do sink, it is not a day of celebration; it is an awful day, as the game's reputation would be tarnished.

In my view, the difference between complaining and caring is that if you care, you won't allow personal vendettas to influence your support for the game. I believe that too many do.

I also believe many within the community—and this seems absolutely bizarre to say as I type it out—but I feel so many ignore or are simply not interested in delving deeper into the football, like the actual football played on the pitch.

How often have you scrolled through social media during an A-League game, and the main topic being discussed is the crowd? Not the performances of players or the decisions of coaches. Instead, negativity about how you, as a viewer, shouldn't enjoy or be passionate about the football because the crowd is subpar. It seems as if the game you are watching is only regularly discussed when it concerns a major refereeing decision. By the way, it is no wonder so few are interested in that occupation.

If I did a content analysis on the number of tweets/posts related to any given A-League game, the tweets/posts not related to on-pitch topics would often outweigh the number related to what is happening on the pitch. Just save your big-picture discussions about off-field topics for during the week; I don't understand why observers who are passionate about a sport's core ingredient (the actual physical activity) must suffer.

But of course, there is a key reason why this problem is particularly prevalent in Australian football, which I briefly mentioned in part three. The sport's media landscape is significantly underfunded, underresourced, and downright scarce in content. I've talked about the impact this has on career opportunities. However, it will continue adversely affecting how the broader community discusses the game.

---

You can read Part 3 of this series here: Why I took a break from Australian football - Part 3: Personal struggles

---

Because so few platforms like this one provide tailored content and coverage of Australian football, there is less diversification in what is covered and, thus, fewer narratives surrounding particular topics. Based on what I've noticed over the past five years, what usually happens is that one or two narratives take the spotlight and are discussed for certain news stories.

In part three, I talked about observing the media landscapes of the NBA and AFL to understand if there were differences in coverage compared to what I've mentioned in football above. The differences predominantly lie in the range of coverage on offer and the inability of those in the media to speak their mind.

Take what I just said about the lack of narratives and angles on specific topics. Let's use the Grand Final between Melbourne City and Melbourne Victory as an example. Even on an occasion like that, where more media is usually covering it, you would have been hard-pressed to find coverage on, for example, the tactical game plan Aurelio Vidmar and City's coaching staff devised to defeat their rivals. As someone fascinated by the game's tactical side, I find the absence of regular coverage in this area particularly frustrating.

Now, a landscape like the NBA provides media where everyone can find and consume what they want. If I love talking about trades, I can find content about that. If I want to compare the legacies of two players, I can find content about that. If I want to find out more about the strategy Rick Carlisle is using to devise what has been an incredible Indiana Pacers run for the championship, I, you guessed it, can find content about that. To be clear, I'm not blaming Australian football media for not being able to cater to every person's main interests; that would be ridiculous. I'm just pointing out the issues that arise from its under-resourcing that perhaps many wouldn't have realised.

Even worse, particular arguments or schools of thought towards topics become so ingrained that the idea that someone can argue an opposing point is met with intense ridicule. Again, I'll give you an example.

The Socceroos have just made their sixth straight World Cup, so this argument shouldn't have to be used at any point in the immediate future (hopefully). But should they not make one again, I've always held a view that if it did happen, it would not be the end of the world, as so many seem to suggest, as it would be a much-needed wake-up call to the game's governing bodies to seriously take a look at aspects such as pathways and player and coach development. Now, perhaps I'm misinterpreting this, but I feel as if, had I tweeted an opinion like that when it looked like Australia wasn't going to make it in 2022, I would have been met with a colossal amount of criticism for my negativity and seen as a villain of the sport, such is the toxic nature of the discourse in the community.

This notion also ties into the idea that I don't feel I can honestly give my genuine opinion on many topics as a media member. If I did, I would be seen as being too harsh for saying things that are supposedly not allowed. I will talk about this idea using an AFL analyst as an example (calm down) who, ironically enough, was inspired by American sports media coverage to take the approach he has taken to analysis.

Kane Cornes has become a polarising figure in AFL media. You either like his analysis because it is infallibly honest and cuts through the often surface-level, non-detailed critiques we listen to in Australian sport or hate it because it is too harsh, self-serving, and comes across as if he is over-indulging in mirroring himself on popular American sports media figures like Bill Simmons or Colin Cowherd, so some might perceive him as inauthentic.

But the main point is that—at least how I see it—Cornes is willing to be different and shake up the media landscape covering his sport. He's ok with going against the status quo. We wouldn't affect much change if we all followed the crowd, like I feel many do in Australian football. I certainly don't agree with everything Cornes says and understand why people wouldn't listen to him. But acting like his approach is not allowed or is "not how we do it in Australia" is frankly ridiculous and wrong.

Ok, so let's return to Australian football and how the conversation above relates to it. For our media landscape to be successful, its members should be well within their right to criticise players, coaches, and administrators (for their performance), so long as the line is not crossed to where it becomes personal (about their character/personalities). That's genuine accountability, not feeling pressured into tiptoeing around issues, which doesn't achieve anything.

And let's say a member of our media landscape criticises one of your club's players for their performances, and you disagree; that's fine! Not being a fan of a football journalist or commentator because of their views should be totally normal. However, there seems to be an environment in our sport where disagreement is almost always considered bad or ugly. In truth, it depends on their nature. A lot of disagreement can be good if constructive conversations lead to positive action within our sport. It seems too many people in our community are often engaged in toxic discussions that lead to nothing but anger and frustration.

But probably most importantly, as someone who loves following narratives in the NBA, for example, these disagreements and arguments, when conducted without malice, can lead to creating narratives that can become talking points surrounding games every week, making our sport that much more interesting and bringing a greater sense of anticipation to what we're all doing to support it, whether media or not.

That's what makes sports theatre. For me, Australian football is missing out on fundamentals in its discourse that would go a long way to making the community feel more passionate about the game and have more conversations that lead to change, not increasing frustration and, even worse, apathy.

Click here to read Part 1 of Why I took a break from Australian football.