Netball Australia has lost 15 million in sponsorship because one individual had an issue with the sponsor.
What’s truly amazing is even after this fact the organisation and the individuals inside it are still too much of a coward to identify the issue. So let me do it for them, the problem they have is:
That’s it. This self-entitled, narcissistic moron cost her beloved sport an incredible amount of funds because she wants to hold the sponsor hostage to the sins of the father.
The court of public opinion has been thankfully very clear on the topic despite the media interference. I would estimate 95% of people share my view whenever they are allowed to be shared.
However it seems netball generally are far more worried about the feelings of one individual then the survival of the sport. How would any serious grown-up not pulled her aside and explain carefully and slowly that her position was despicable, casting aspersions on one person based on their heritage (ironic much?). In fact the team doubled down:
The singular issue of concern to the players was one of support for our only Indigenous team member. We are fully committed to the Diamonds’ Sister in Arms legacy and the values this represents, alongside Australian Netball’s Declaration of Commitment.
It would be interesting to see what they would do if the “only indigenous team member” has a negative opinion on homosexuality or Muslims. Do they get automatic support based on their melanin levels or would each opinion be judged on its merits? Based off recent events it doesn’t look goof for the gays and the Muslims. But its possibly unfair to burden athletes with adult responsibility. Sure someone overseeing the sport and looking at the ones and zeros would offer a different perspective and perhaps some harsh discipline giving the 7million hole in their current budget:
“We acknowledge the difficulties and impact of recent discussions and are disappointed to see them withdraw the partnership,” Netball Australia boss Kelly Ryan said in a statement on Saturday.
“This is a loss for our whole sport, from grassroots through to the elite program. Sadly, this is evident today with the decision to also withdraw financial support for Netball WA and the West Coast Fever.”
Weasel worded, jargon. Everyone is too nice to stop an individual and then an organisation from making a huge mistake. I hope these people don’t advise me next time I am thinking of getting a face tattoo.
Update: Looks like the lesson won’t be learnt
Queensland Firebirds midcourter Jemma Mi Mi is a proud Wakka Wakka woman and had been the player doing most of the heavy lifting when it came to promoting the upcoming (indigenous) round.
Come gameday, however, the Firebirds left Mi Mi on the bench.
As someone that has been a sole figure at the top level before, Marcia Ella-Duncan told the ABC she felt absolutely shattered watching the game, but not surprised.
“I’m disappointed for Jemma. I’m disappointed for the game. We missed an opportunity to take advantage of a platform and to really do something substantial,” she said.
“Such a small thing like giving Mi Mi some time on court, would have had a huge impact and that is systematic of the system. They didn’t need to do much to have a big impact.”
Putting aside that having an indigenous round for a sport with only one indigenous player seems farcical and patronising to me, people literally wanted to have someone play based solely on their race. In 2022. Meritocracy be damned, let the token indigenous person play. I feel sorry for Jemma, all this extra responsibility for a bunch of liberal white women who feel bad.
However I would concede that their may be an issue in netball, if I put my racist stereotype hat on for a moment, to have only 3 players represent the Australian side from the indigenous community in its history despite the indigenous community punching far above its statistical weight in other athletic endeavours such as athletics, AFl and rugby league is really bizarre. Tokenizing and removing meritocracy for your current players is not the strategy I would take if there is indeed some issue there.
Bonus Question for you cats: Why would a mining company bother to sponsor sport at all. Is it pure vanity? Sports sponsorships have to be one of the worse financial decisions.
It’s possibly “niceness”, but more than likely fear. Fear of the cancelled, “othered” for speaking out.
This is a typically female trait in all-female environments. Once you’re on the receiving end you think twice. They have other females to reinforce the example – look at what happens to someone like Pauline Hanson when she pipes up at stupidity.
And it may be that no one in netball has any strength of conviction about anything apart from what the group agrees upon. Strong bodies with flabby backbones.
I doubt the issue was about Donnell Wallam being offended by something that Lang Hancock said, decades ago. She wouldn’t have known about it. It would have been some activists who dug up the quote and then trained Wallam in kicking up a fuss.
The assumption would have been that all the sympathy would be for this poor, indigenous netballer, and this would shame Rinehart into apologising for the sins of her father.
They didn’t realise they were dealing with a sponsor who wasn’t going to play their game. As in this story that I posted here, Rinehart is sponsoring other indigenous charities who gratefully accept the funding.
Ironically Rinehart got more exposure from cancelling the sponsorship then she would of ever had from it.
I am trying to decide which is worse and I think your take may be. Cowardice may be the bigger issue here assuming they realised at any point the stupidity of the position.
Why would a mining company bother to sponsor sport at all.
100% tax right-off .. most likely!
I suspect marketing psychology says otherwise.
For sports which have a big audience (combine television and sports field/stadium) the sponsor logo and product is on display to thousands or even millions watching the game. You, as the viewer, are watching the athletes/players with bat or ball scoring runs or goals. But your subconscious is also registering the name of the sponsor, continuously.
In the case of Netball Australia, I would guess that Rinehart was making more of a charitable donation rather than expecting big returns. Helping women’s sport, maybe?
Gina is very very rich, maybe she just likes sponsoring various activities.
As for the what Lang said, a narrative shift when ‘mining bad’ tanked as a reasonable reason for refusal to wear the logo.
I bet the google searches for what Lang said only started after the zoom meeting with Norder.
I linked to Crikey doubling down on the race card in the open thread. Progressive activists see nothing incongruous in holding the people of the present liable for things their antecedents said or did. It’s the whole rationale for “treaties” which give rise to reparations & apologies. Follow the money. The progressive machine is about to go all in with the Uluru statement and a “First Nations” Voice enshrined in the Constitution. Victoria’s socialist government is well on the way towards signing a treaty with indigenous activists & handing over compensation by the bucketful- it’ll be a done deal if Chairman Dan is re-elected.
I follow a lot of sports and I have no idea of any of the sponsors except maybe a few of the major sponsors. Stadium naming rights might be the other exception.
I know its anecdotal but business advertisements is something I am rather attuned to and the sports ones just seem like a waste of time.
They simply don’t follow logic or reality. I am certain that is the conservative/progressive divide.
I can guarantee if the roles were reversed they would have no trouble defending the player from actions their parents did. Its all rather depressing.
There should be far more activists speaking out, gluing themselves… . I love it. Part of modern entertainment. It has replaced film noir in my books. I lookforward to the next indignation.