BOTH are gladiatorial contests fought out by opposing teams, watched by two camps of passionate, one-eyed supporters and a big chunk of people in the middle whose sympathy drifts from side to side depending on the state of play. Both are examined forensically in the media, where mis-steps are punished, personalities are dissected and analysts explain how it should have been done. And both are guaranteed to start an argument at any pub table, workplace tea room or family dinner.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
So why don’t Australians demand that their politics is played more like their team sports?
With the grand final combatants for the NRL now decided, supporters will spend the week hoping for the same things. They will want a positive game, where victory goes to the team that best uses its talents, skills and ideas, rather than the team that best hampers, hinders or neutralises the skills of the opposing players.
They will want a clean game, without dirty tactics, name calling, ugly abuse or explosive losses of control. They will want the players to give the contest their all, but to accept the result with grace and maturity while understanding that each side wanted the victory as much as the other.
And for the players from opposing sides that have the opportunity to represent their nation, they will want them to put aside previous loyalties so they can focus on a common goal: what is good for Australia.
Why do Australians tolerate – and, in some cases, encourage - name-calling, negativity, petty point scoring, an inability to acknowledge any of the other side’s talents or strengths and a willingness to put your party’s interests above the national interest?
Some will say the stakes are so much higher in politics, and that’s what makes politics and sport different.
But if the stakes are higher, isn’t that a reason to expect more from our politicians, rather than less?
