Vic bias and the media

(Log in to remove this ad.)

telsor

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2004
30,520
27,293
Here
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Habs
Correct, boil it down and dissect it. The bulk of the market overwhelmingly is in vic - cold hard reality - where the players will go. Can't be ignored.

So STILL my question remains, if WA and SA fans that are so pi55ed off with the competition and vic media and are still bunkered down to follow teams that have zero history before their inception still follow those teams? What's the point?

Why not just snub those big bad evil victorians and stick phat with their SANFL and WAFL teams? As a first interest?

Exactly. There was no 'national comp' without Vic, and everywhere else was optional. (and by extension, no Vic without the big Vic clubs).

This means the comp was always going to have some Vic-centric aspects....Because Vic *IS* the centre of the comp.
 

Blues90

Club Legend
Oct 24, 2015
1,248
1,598
AFL Club
Carlton
I'm not sure if everyone actually knows this but for some reason every country except ours has states talking about their own state teams? Of course there would be Vic bias in the VICTORIAN media how dumb are you people just like when you watch the news in SA all they really talk about is the SOUTH AUSTRALIAN teams what a stupid thread

On SM-G975F using BigFooty.com mobile app
 

kreglze

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 28, 2011
13,912
10,959
Melbourne
AFL Club
Gold Coast
Other Teams
Arsenal
I'm not sure if everyone actually knows this but for some reason every country except ours has states talking about their own state teams? Of course there would be Vic bias in the VICTORIAN media how dumb are you people just like when you watch the news in SA all they really talk about is the SOUTH AUSTRALIAN teams what a stupid thread

On SM-G975F using BigFooty.com mobile app
I think the issue is (from my POV anyway) is that Fox Footy which is marketed as a national channel, just feature the same group of clubs every single night. Local media of course focus on local teams, but Fox Footy which is Australia wide just really focus on the big Victorian clubs.
 

greatwhiteshark

Norm Smith Medallist
Oct 3, 2007
9,983
9,133
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
West Perth
I think the issue is (from my POV anyway) is that Fox Footy which is marketed as a national channel, just feature the same group of clubs every single night. Local media of course focus on local teams, but Fox Footy which is Australia wide just really focus on the big Victorian clubs.
You don’t have to watch it though, bit like a Friday night game now. I don’t know anyone who watches Friday night footy now. It’s always the same Vic clubs so it’s become the doomed time slot for me in footy now.
 

kreglze

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 28, 2011
13,912
10,959
Melbourne
AFL Club
Gold Coast
Other Teams
Arsenal
You don’t have to watch it though, bit like a Friday night game now. I don’t know anyone who watches Friday night footy now. It’s always the same Vic clubs so it’s become the doomed time slot for me in footy now.
Yeah I don't watch any AFL media anymore, was just answering the above posters grievance. Yeah I agree though, Friday night footy only gets a watch if I have nothing else to do.
 

Carringbush2010

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 6, 2016
5,333
3,040
Perth
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Pines Football Club
You don’t have to watch it though, bit like a Friday night game now. I don’t know anyone who watches Friday night footy now. It’s always the same Vic clubs so it’s become the doomed time slot for me in footy now.
Pity, they missed a good close game between wc and the pies a few weeks back!
 

Kwality

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 14, 2011
18,528
6,198
Tootgarook
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Renault F1
I would have no idea what the AFL has said to other states regarding the GF, if they said anything at all.

Do you?


As for the deal they did, i am against it.
All I know is what I read & I questioned the press coverage or lack thereof. Its about the media not the AFL, nor what the fans think though pleased to see you dont support the AFL decision on this.
 

Kwality

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 14, 2011
18,528
6,198
Tootgarook
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Renault F1
not quite so accurate,

the Docklands 3 ( Dogs, North, Saints ) finally got a stadium deal( end 2017) that they could make money( Saints expected an extra $2m a year from same crowd sizes) and the big clubs received the same renumeration at the MCG ( along with the GF ) despite already being well ahead of those smaller clubs in stadium profitability.

Saints have played 1 home final (Sydney 2011) despite making back to back GF's and prelims before that.

The Bias isn't just Vic clubs, its specific clubs and it comes from the media's insistence that only ex footballers can be on the Telly and only sub standard flag waving gossip mongers can write in the papers, Exept Denis of course. he's as impartial as Eddie........
My question was the media coverage or lack thereof NOT the decision.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Papa G

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 13, 2006
21,615
37,919
The Bitter End
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
But that's the point, wherever the market is where the best players will go - that cannot be disputed. A national comp without all of Ess, Carl, Rich, Coll and maybe even Haw would not work or at best would not be the highest profile / attended league. It's simple economics.

IF there were to be a national comp without those clubs it would certainly not be the highest profile league as much as anyone one / entity would want it to be.

The hard and cold fact IS that the bulk of the market is in vic and that is why we have a "vic centric" national comp. No way around it really.
Yes you are correct. But what if it was a situation where only say Carlton, Collingwood and Essendon were admitted to a national league, and Hawthorn and Richmond were told they weren't wanted, due mainly to their financial issues (this is hypothetical, but it could have happened). What do you reckon would have happened to Richmond's and especially Hawthorn's popularity over time if they were forced to play in the VFA and all their best players went and played elsewhere? I dare say 30 years on Hawthorn would be struggling to get 5,000 people to Glenferrie on a Saturday afternoon. But it didn't pan out that way.

The VFL was bigger than the WAFL and the SANFL. It had more clout, It had more money. Victoria had more people. Melbourne had more corporate and media influence. These things are undeniable. The VFL acted in the best interests of itself and won. As such it brought along all it's legacy clubs (bar 1). The writing was on the wall. The Indian Pacific Corporation knew it, Port Adelaide knew it and eventually the WAFL and SANFL were also forced to come around to the idea.
 

Kwality

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 14, 2011
18,528
6,198
Tootgarook
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Renault F1
The afl it self is massively Vic centric.
Fta games almost always feature at least one Vic side.
Friday night games the same.
All umpires based in victoria
It is not not surprising the media is the same.
Friday night footy is time specific suiting the Vic & SA markets, WA games are a pain for many WA club members - its about big TV audiences in Vic & SA IMHO, & games are allocated on that basis IMHO, rather than particular bias.
 

Kwality

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 14, 2011
18,528
6,198
Tootgarook
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Renault F1
And I don't get that! Why the constant whinging from both WA and SA based fans about the vicco bias, when it was / is clear that the comp is based mainly in vic and where the bulk of the market is?

Why would anyone just dump their own super successful comps to get on the bandwagon of a brand new team with zero history for the sake of competing in a league that you're just gonna complain about anyway?

Why would the local media just dump a comp that been around for 100+ years for a brand new team in comp that they are at odds with to begin with?

Nah do the righty and turn your back on it! F*** the national comp! If you're just gonna be pi55ed off with it.
Change happens, e.g the Eagles travelled 4 times to Melbourne in 1990, the opportunity to earn home finals followed.
Was it the late 90s that Eddie negotiated a great deal for the Pies to call the G home (18 games) & thanks Eddie, the MCG contract was altered to change the conditions (maybe that prelims no longer had to be played there). Eddie doesnt get the respect due for altering the contract, he didnt have to, he did for the cred of the comp).

In the Eagles first year we had 35 on the list, everyone else had 53 - that changed, & the Nostradamus in me cant see the GF staying at the until 2057.
 
Last edited:

Carringbush2010

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 6, 2016
5,333
3,040
Perth
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Pines Football Club
Yes you are correct. But what if it was a situation where only say Carlton, Collingwood and Essendon were admitted to a national league, and Hawthorn and Richmond were told they weren't wanted, due mainly to their financial issues (this is hypothetical, but it could have happened). What do you reckon would have happened to Richmond's and especially Hawthorn's popularity over time if they were forced to play in the VFA and all their best players went and played elsewhere? I dare say 30 years on Hawthorn would be struggling to get 5,000 people to Glenferrie on a Saturday afternoon. But it didn't pan out that way.

The VFL was bigger than the WAFL and the SANFL. It had more clout, It had more money. Victoria had more people. Melbourne had more corporate and media influence. These things are undeniable. The VFL acted in the best interests of itself and won. As such it brought along all it's legacy clubs (bar 1). The writing was on the wall. The Indian Pacific Corporation knew it, Port Adelaide knew it and eventually the WAFL and SANFL were also forced to come around to the idea.
I'll answer your 1st paragraph: This hypothetical wouldn't hold, unless you include all of the clubs i:e the way it is now- even the lowly clubs have approx 40k members - you'd argue they'd each have over 100k paying supporters of varying degrees. So it'd be impossible to exclude any vic club really and expect their fans to just jump ship to this hypothetical - just wouldn't happen.

That's why I find it perplexing that the WA and SA markets dropped their local leagues with 100+ years of history for brand new teams with zero history like a bad habit and almost overnight I might add. I just can't get my head around it.

As for your second paragraph well you've basically explained why we have what we have now.

Fact of the matter is the bulk of the market is over there in vic. Whichever you boil it down and dissect you can't escape this reality, the market is the driver of where and who the teams and players are. So what we have now is probably the only sustainable national model which it isn't really national.

Having said all that there's every reason if the bulk of the WA and SA market just snubbed this national league then the WAFL and SANFL would be going gangbusters in some way shape or form. They'd just have a much much larger market than what they have now, they'd be huge.

As for the thread, the reason the "national" media pay more attention to high profile clubs is because that's what the footy public want to watch / listen. Add to the fact the bulk of the national media are ex vic / vlf players.
 

LoungeLizard

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 15, 2009
8,148
6,109
gippsland
AFL Club
Collingwood
All I know is what I read & I questioned the press coverage or lack thereof. Its about the media not the AFL, nor what the fans think though pleased to see you dont support the AFL decision on this.
Well i have seen some Vic media personal against the decision, make of that what you will.
 

Carringbush2010

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 6, 2016
5,333
3,040
Perth
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Pines Football Club
Change happens, e.g the Eagles travelled 4 times to Melbourne in 1990, the opportunity to earn home finals followed.
Was it the late 90s that Eddie negotiated a great deal for the Pies to call the G home (18 games) & thanks Eddie, the MCG contract was altered to change the conditions (maybe that prelims no longer had to be played there). Eddie doesnt get the respect due for altering the contract, he didnt have to, he did for the cred of the comp).

In the Eagles first year we had 35 on the list, everyone else had 53 - that changed, & the Nostradamus in me cant see the GF staying at the until 2057.
Change happens, then why do we still have 10 teams that have been in the league since 1925 at the latest. Apart from a takeover (Bris - Fitzroy) and a relocated team (South Melb to Sydney)? That's almost zero change as far as vic clubs go in nearly 100 years.

Apart from those two clubs the only changes have been the addition of brand new teams (Port aside) to try claim it as a national comp.

Why do vic club supporters not support change? Why is it that nearly every victorian wants their club to remain? Why do Fitzroy and South supporters want their clubs back in vic?

You'll find your answers there.

Your post comes across as a wish for change to equalize the comp, until the bulk of the market support those changes then nothing will change.
 

greatwhiteshark

Norm Smith Medallist
Oct 3, 2007
9,983
9,133
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
West Perth
I'll answer your 1st paragraph: This hypothetical wouldn't hold, unless you include all of the clubs i:e the way it is now- even the lowly clubs have approx 40k members - you'd argue they'd each have over 100k paying supporters of varying degrees. So it'd be impossible to exclude any vic club really and expect their fans to just jump ship to this hypothetical - just wouldn't happen.

That's why I find it perplexing that the WA and SA markets dropped their local leagues with 100+ years of history for brand new teams with zero history like a bad habit and almost overnight I might add. I just can't get my head around it.

As for your second paragraph well you've basically explained why we have what we have now.

Fact of the matter is the bulk of the market is over there in vic. Whichever you boil it down and dissect you can't escape this reality, the market is the driver of where and who the teams and players are. So what we have now is probably the only sustainable national model which it isn't really national.

Having said all that there's every reason if the bulk of the WA and SA market just snubbed this national league then the WAFL and SANFL would be going gangbusters in some way shape or form. They'd just have a much much larger market than what they have now, they'd be huge.

As for the thread, the reason the "national" media pay more attention to high profile clubs is because that's what the footy public want to watch / listen. Add to the fact the bulk of the national media are ex vic / vlf players.
They didn’t have 40k members in 1986, more like 7-8k for the smaller Vic clubs. Supporter base also much smaller than today.

I agree with you and also don’t understand how so many just dropped the club they supported their whole life overnight. Just staggering.

If the WAFL had of got these big sponsors to support the WAFL then the player exodus would be minimal. Having said that sponsors were not as keen back then to pump money into sport. Oh how the landscape has changed.

As for the national media, it doesn’t exist. There is media in every state and they provide for their own market. The AFL is based around the biggest market which is Victoria and therefor as you said that’s where all the big footy shows are.
Doesn’t bother me the media thing, the AFL bother me though as they are still running an extended VFL when they fall people should be the ones pumping the national concept. The media run with what they put forward, change what you put in lights and the media will follow.
 

Carringbush2010

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 6, 2016
5,333
3,040
Perth
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Pines Football Club
They didn’t have 40k members in 1986, more like 7-8k for the smaller Vic clubs. Supporter base also much smaller than today.

I agree with you and also don’t understand how so many just dropped the club they supported their whole life overnight. Just staggering.

If the WAFL had of got these big sponsors to support the WAFL then the player exodus would be minimal. Having said that sponsors were not as keen back then to pump money into sport. Oh how the landscape has changed.

As for the national media, it doesn’t exist. There is media in every state and they provide for their own market. The AFL is based around the biggest market which is Victoria and therefor as you said that’s where all the big footy shows are.
Doesn’t bother me the media thing, the AFL bother me though as they are still running an extended VFL when they fall people should be the ones pumping the national concept. The media run with what they put forward, change what you put in lights and the media will follow.
And we didn't have 25 million people back then either, in any case they still had member and fan bases that kept them relevant. Even if the then VFL folded the higher profile teams at least were marketable they were never going to die off. Same with WAFL and SANFL there was enough market to pick up the football so to speak, so your 1st point is moot to begin with.

As for your sore point - HQ running an extended VFL, why do you think that is? You answered in the very previous sentence. The bulk of the footy market is on the other side of the country.

So when do you think they're gonna "fall"? Well that's easy when the market shows no interest in the league / game it will die off, so when do you think the bulk of the market is gonna stop going to games and parking their asses on the sofa tuned into ch 7 / fox footy to watch?

Actually I could ask that of your good self, when are you going to snub this very league and it's media we're talking about because you're disjointed with it? And why jump on in the 1st place? Why not stick phat with an already popular and marketable WAFL?

There is no logical reason why the WA and SA public so quickly jumped off leagues with rich history and teams they've been supporting their whole lives for what?

So now you can all whinge "it's not fair, it's all vic centric"? FMD what did you all expect? We all just fold traditional vfl teams for sake of equity and just hope like hell the bulk of the market stick around like zombies because HQ says so?

pffft c'mon Great White, I respect you as a poster but if you can't see the why and accept it and then still follow this league while being pi55ed off with it then maybe I over estimated you.
 
Last edited:

Papa G

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 13, 2006
21,615
37,919
The Bitter End
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
When you think about, West Coast supporters really shouldn't give a s**t about Victorian bias, because they largely have been the club to overcome it.

The AFL is designed to promote and profit the 5 or 6 biggest Victorian clubs and Sydney (as the Victorians still desire both the acceptance and money/corporate opportunities Australia's most important cities provides).

West Coast have overcome these impediments to become the AFL's biggest, wealthiest and most successful club. Who gives a s**t if the Victorians don't properly acknowledge this? You get your balls cupped in your home market more than anybody else does (even more than the Crows), and you've bucked their system. Who cares if a bunch of lazy VFL era hacks who live in their own Malbun footy bubble dont talk about you. It shouldn't bother you that much.
 

greatwhiteshark

Norm Smith Medallist
Oct 3, 2007
9,983
9,133
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
West Perth
And we didn't have 25 million people back then either, in any case they still had member and fan bases that kept them relevant. Even if the then VFL folded the higher profile teams at least were marketable they were never going to die off. Same with WAFL and SANFL there was enough market to pick up the football so to speak, so your 1st point is moot to begin with.

As for your sore point - HQ running an extended VFL, why do you think that is? You answered in the very previous sentence. The bulk of the footy market is on the other side of the country.

So when do you think they're gonna "fall"? Well that's easy when the market shows no interest in the league / game it will die off, so when do you think the bulk of the market is gonna stop going to games and parking their asses on the sofa tuned into ch 7 / fox footy to watch?

Actually I could ask that of your good self, when are you going to snub this very league and it's media we're talking about because you're disjointed with it? And why jump on in the 1st place? Why not stick phat with an already popular and marketable WAFL?

There is no logical reason why the WA and SA public so quickly jumped off leagues with rich history and teams they've been supporting their whole lives for what?

So now you can all whinge "it's not fair, it's all vic centric"? FMD what did you all expect? We all just fold traditional vfl teams for sake of equity and just hope like hell the bulk of the market stick around like zombies because HQ says so?

pffft c'mon Great White, I respect you as a poster but if you can't see the why and accept it and then still follow this league while being pi55ed off with it then maybe I over estimated you.
I am not sure where you are coming from, I have said numerous times the media doesn’t bother me.
I am not a fan of head office and never have been. Been pretty clear on that for a long time also.
The AFL need to be the ones championing the sport nationally, not just a few clubs. Take for example the Pies and the Tigers, two huge Victorian clubs. Why the need to parade them nationally all the time? They could play those two clubs up against two other games in the worst time slot and still get 70k plus to their games, they don’t need exposure in Victoria and outside of Victoria the vast majority are not interested in them. Why not expose and grow the Bulldogs, or the Saints and North for example?

Now I know you will say that’s what the broadcasters want and under head office that’s the way it is but why not say we run the league, we set the fixture and you broadcasters tell us how much you will give us for said product. If that drops the TV rights by x amount of millions then so what? The only clubs getting exposed are the clubs that don’t need exposure.

As for your comment to go and follow the WAFL, well I do and I am not only a member of West Perth but also my company sponsors them. I am a member of the Eagles also yet I have attended just 4 of my 11 game membership as I would prefer to watch West Perth.

I understand what you say but I am entitled to think the comp should be more balanced and I blame AFL house for it. I might be wrong in thinking so in your view and that’s fine by me.

Ps I also am a fan of your posts and find discussing footy with you an enjoyment.
 

Carringbush2010

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 6, 2016
5,333
3,040
Perth
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Pines Football Club
I am not sure where you are coming from, I have said numerous times the media doesn’t bother me.
I am not a fan of head office and never have been. Been pretty clear on that for a long time also.
The AFL need to be the ones championing the sport nationally, not just a few clubs. Take for example the Pies and the Tigers, two huge Victorian clubs. Why the need to parade them nationally all the time? They could play those two clubs up against two other games in the worst time slot and still get 70k plus to their games, they don’t need exposure in Victoria and outside of Victoria the vast majority are not interested in them. Why not expose and grow the Bulldogs, or the Saints and North for example?

Now I know you will say that’s what the broadcasters want and under head office that’s the way it is but why not say we run the league, we set the fixture and you broadcasters tell us how much you will give us for said product. If that drops the TV rights by x amount of millions then so what? The only clubs getting exposed are the clubs that don’t need exposure.

As for your comment to go and follow the WAFL, well I do and I am not only a member of West Perth but also my company sponsors them. I am a member of the Eagles also yet I have attended just 4 of my 11 game membership as I would prefer to watch West Perth.

I understand what you say but I am entitled to think the comp should be more balanced and I blame AFL house for it. I might be wrong in thinking so in your view and that’s fine by me.

Ps I also am a fan of your posts and find discussing footy with you an enjoyment.
Do you really think that HQ will forgo marquee games for the sake of sentiment? As noble as this is they're not going to. It's a business after all is said and done. There in lies your thorn in the side.

The national comp is not balanced because it panders to market factors - this is the blunt reality, it's a business after all is said and done. There in lies your thorn in the side.

I already know you're an avid West Perth member and I commend you for that. Unfortunately that makes you an exception to the rule - the bulk of our population in WA is all about WC or Freo. Almost zero about the famous WAFL and their (once) powerhouse teams.

No one has ever answered the question why it is / was so important to dump this prestigious league (and the SANFL) and their teams or at least have Ade, WC or Freo as the 1st interest. What is the logical reason for that? For decades I've contemplated any reasonable explanations and I can't think of one. All we we hear from non vic supporters is wah! Well then vote with your feet! Hit HQ where it hurts! Force em to go back to their VFL!

Otherwise it's just being disingenuous and not being true to your footy roots.

If I may so boldly say, you yourself could only be genuine about your gripes with this comp if you ditched it. You can't expect this comp to be ideal for all non vic clubs at the expense of vic clubs and expect all the vic fans to just accept change because.That's unfair to ask and HQ won't bend that way anyway for obvious reasons.

I can categorically tell you that near ZERO vic club supporters would've done the same and dump their 100+ year teams for a brand new start up. So why did those west of Vic do so? Makes no sense.
 

Top Bottom