“True to our roots, we welcome everyone to rugby league, regardless of race, colour, religion, ability, creed, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, ancestry, or age. We proudly and publicly stand against intolerance and bigotry, and will actively campaign against it. We treat everyone fairly and equally.”
So states the NRL’s 2017 inclusion framework, which was developed after a review by the Australian Human Rights Commission and aims to “promote inclusion and reflect the diversity of our community”.
As the Manly Sea Eagles are discovering this week, sometimes the elements of diversity and inclusion can be at odds. When the club announced the team would wear a rainbow strip on their jersey during this week’s game against the Sydney Roosters to promote LGBTIQ+ inclusion in rugby league, there was instant backlash. Seven players told the club they would stand down from the match, as they would not wear the jersey due to their religious and cultural beliefs.
It is no doubt an incredibly complex issue, one that sits at the intersections of race, culture, gender identity and sexuality. Those seven players are well within their rights to make the decision not to wear a jersey that conflicts with their religious beliefs.
However, it raises many questions about how diversity and inclusion can be fairly applied across the league when personal beliefs are at odds. How does a teammate sitting next to a player who thanks God in a press conference feel if they have been subject to abuse within a religious institution? How do they remove themselves from this situation? Do they have a right to ask that religion is not discussed in front of them? Can recovering alcoholics opt out of wearing jerseys with alcohol sponsorship on them? Can the child of a problem gambler ask for sports betting agencies to be removed from their uniform?
These are more complex questions due to the relative power of the institutions in question. Religious organisations and alcohol and gambling companies hold a great deal more societal and financial power than LGBTIQ+ people, and are deeply ingrained in the culture of rugby league, and sport more widely. Thus it is harder for individual players to stand against this power and ask for special consideration.
The backlash against Manly has been swift and fierce. Coach Des Hasler fronted a press conference on Tuesday to apologise for the “significant mistake” made by the club. Most notably he apologised for the lack of consultation of key stakeholders before a public announcement was made.
It is interesting to consider how this situation would have transpired had this consultation occurred. The Sea Eagles are currently ninth on the ladder, with six rounds remaining before the finals series. This weekend they play the eighth-placed Roosters in what will be a key match in determining their finals hopes. If the discussions had all been kept in-house before making an announcement and seven players told the club they would not play in the match, would the club have been brave enough to forge ahead with the idea? More likely it would have been quietly put in the ‘too hard’ basket and taken off the agenda.
Hasler also apologised to the LGBTIQ+ community, noting that he is a great admirer of Ian Roberts – the NRL’s first (and only) openly gay player – who has worked with Manly in instituting the pride jersey.
“For any person struggling with identity, we acknowledge the challenges and difficulties,” Hasler said. “My heart goes out to you and your families, and if the club can personally do anything to assist, we will. We are here, we offer our complete support. I apologise to anyone to whom this matter has caused distress.”
These are heartfelt words, but how much comfort would they provide to a young rugby league fan struggling with their identity? In handling this issue the way it has, the club has made sexuality and gender identity a subject of debate – with everyone from fans on social media to Paul Gallen on Channel Nine publicly opposing the decision.
Had the situation been approached with education and compassion from the outset – engaging Roberts to address the playing group about his experiences as a gay man in rugby league, giving the players with religious objections a voice within the club to explain their reluctance and allowing both groups to understand the challenges the others face and work together to conceptualise a solution – conversations around the sport this week may have been very different.
Instead, what we have been given is the most rugby league interpretation of inclusion possible. Rush it through, try to sweep it under the carpet, apologise profusely, hope everyone forgets about it and restore the status quo. It is an approach that is disrespectful of the fans, the players and all those who want the game to be better. If the NRL truly believes they “treat everyone fairly and equally”, now is the time to start demonstrating it.
