By MICHAEL BYRNES
STEVE Mascord wrote an evocative piece in the SMH this week, titled The two really crazy things about rugby league in Australia right now. Evocative, thoughtful, and interesting but not totally convincing.
One of Mascord’s crazy things is that from a representative viewpoint, the public and media focus (chicken and egg?) is firmly on State of Origin, rather than the glittering international rugby league schedule that will unfold locally in 2017. And it is a valid concern. His argument is threefold: firstly, that a significant and ever-increasing proportion of NRL players are not eligible for State of Origin selection, secondly, that the level of international competitiveness (at least between Australia and New Zealand) now eclipses State of Origin, and thirdly, that the main attraction of Origin was the biff which has now been outlawed.
I believe Steve Mascord’s argument comes unstuck on each of these three points.
It should be remembered that prior to the advent of State of Origin, interstate rugby league was a cakewalk for NSW, with Queensland winning a grand total of one series between 1956 and 1981. With Big Artie punching clubmate Mick Cronin in the head and QLD running out 20-10 winners in the inaugural State of Origin game, the concept immediately captured the imagination of the rugby league public. While it is undoubtedly true that the raw intensity of Origin is what set it apart from all other forms of the game, Origin’s popularity has always been about so much more than the biff.
Since that first game in 1980, the value of State of Origin as a product has been keenly understood. As such, it is also a product that has been milked for all its worth. However, the fact is that it remains incredibly popular, partially due to persistent marketing and media attention, partially due to tradition, and partially due to the intensity advantage it continues to enjoy over home-and-away club games. State of Origin has been regarded by the community as rugby league’s standard-bearer for 35 years; and that is mindshare in the bank. (continued below)
The argument that an increasing percentage of NRL players are ineligible for State of Origin selection, therefore the concept has passed its used-by date, is disingenuous. Public interest is the ultimate arbiter. If the top 10 players in the game are ineligible for Origin, the concept will die out pretty quickly. But we’re nowhere near that situation, and Origin still has significant reserves of public goodwill to draw upon.
This argument seems similar to the one put forward by women’s sports advocates, who argue on the basis that male athletes receive a disproportionate share of a given sport’s revenue pool. But disproportionate compared to what? It’s the sporting competitions themselves (NRL, AFL, EPL etc) that have cultivated public allegiance and cultivated a reputation as the elite competition in their respective sport. Allegiances take time to shift. When the traditional standard-bearers are no longer differentiating themselves via the quality of their product, they will die out — plain and simple. That’s how the market works.
No doubt there are some difficulties in determining how State of Origin should be overlayed on the NRL and international rugby league calendars going forward, both in terms of scheduling and public focus. Despite myriad suggestions, nothing put forward thus far is likely to improve significantly on the status quo.
We should remind ourselves that State of Origin remains the game’s showpiece and as such it is a precious commodity It should not be taken for granted. The assumption that Origin could be replaced under the fans’ noses with a substitute concept without skipping a beat is naive, arrogant and condescending.
