Question

Groups influencing the Long case Issue 1: The on-field implications of the AFL policy AFL Players’ Association .The AFL Players’ Association (AFLPA) had a limited role in the debate surrounding the Long case. The confrontation between Long and Monkhorst (two players registered as AFLPA members) restricted the AFLPA’s ability to act. On establishment of a policy and adequate resolution to the issue, the AFLPA provided support. The implications of this issue for the AFLPA could have been far-reaching if Long or a group of Aboriginal and ethnic players had instigated further action. However, this did not happen and it can be argued that the AFLPA was a benefactor of the policy being implemented. The Long case instigated an issue of particular importance to a selection of its membership and corrective action was initiated as a result of public pressures without the AFLPA having to become a (political) player in the process. Opinion leaders In the Long case, opinion leaders (in and outside football circles, ranging from players, coaches and administrators to politicians and media representatives) had a significant influence on the awareness and opinions of AFL consumers about the racial vilification issue, mainly through print and broadcast media. While their activity did not highly influence the behavioural patterns of consumers, their visibility became a primary target for the AFL to control through a variety of public relations activities like press releases, news conferences, public statements and television commercials.

Sponsors at first sight, the role of the sponsors in the Long case, as organisational stakeholders, was surprisingly low profile. The major corporate sponsor of the AFL in 1995 was Coca-Cola, with Ansett Australia, CUB, Challenge Bank, Norwich Financial Services and Hungry Jack’s key support sponsors (AFL, 1995: 5). During the case there was little to no public sponsor communication directly related to the issue. Only during the news conference at the AFL was the Coca-Cola logo evident as a backdrop. Sponsors, had they closely aligned or exposed themselves with the AFL during the period of wide and substantial criticism, could seriously have damaged their credibility and negated any positive exposure established through providing corporate support to the AFL as corporate or key support sponsors during this period. Issue 2: The broader social issue of racism and the battle against it Government departments A number of federal and state government departments entered the debate about racial vilification in sport, encouraged by initial comments made by Mr David Shaw, Essendon president, who stated: The incident involving Michael [Long] had ramifications well beyond football . . . We have a responsibility and obligation to not only the club and football but society in general, to try to do our part to get rid of racism in our society. (Denham, 1995b: 1) The AFL received public pressure from government bodies such as the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, the Department of Education and the National Multicultural Advisory Council. All bodies responded because issues raised in the Long case were representative racial issues experienced in a society in a similar fashion. To counter racial vilification in our society, a stand against this type of action needed to be taken.

Community groups

In a similar manner to government bodies, community groups took action to counter the broader implications of the issue. Initiated by the Aboriginal Advancement League, their response was directed at attempting to resolve the Long case and drawing attention to the broader social problems Aboriginals face in our society (Denham, 1995b). Consultation by the AFL with the Human Rights Commission and the Equal Opportunity Commission demonstrated the legal implications of the Long case and the AFL’s attempt to establish a racial vilification policy. The AFL effectively used the support of these bodies to launch its new education and mediation policy, demonstrating that it had ‘underlined its commitment’ to seriously address the problem within the AFL and in the broader community (Smith, 1995b).

Assessment of crisis management There is little doubt that the AFL found the Long case and its implications, in terms of establishing AFL policy and broader social issues, difficult to tackle. In turn, it experienced difficulty controlling the quantity and quality of information communicated to one of the AFL’s primary target audiences, the mass spectator market, by print and broadcast media. Stapleton (1995: 69) stated that ‘the AFL found itself uncomfortably holding a very hot political football—so hot they proceeded to drop it’. In spite of these difficulties, the AFL implemented a number of public relations activities to communicate its message, including:

• press releases; • news conferences; • appearances by key AFL personnel (Ross Oakley) on Channel 7 football programs; • interviews on broadcast radio such as 3AW and 3LO; • articles in AFL publications such as the Football Record; • television advertisements; • distribution of information booklets; and • documentation in the 1995 Annual Report (Peek, 1998).

Analysis of the breadth of communication tools utilised to inform target audiences indicates that the AFL was quite exhaustive in its efforts. The AFL addressed the Long case through establishing an objective of developing a policy to counter racial abuse on the field. Criticism by the media of the initial policy release indicated that the AFL had not achieved its objective. It was clearly evident at this stage that the AFL had failed to appreciate the gravity and implications of the Long case. Measured through analysis of press reports, the AFL concluded that there had been negative audience reception and understanding of the case. However, following consultation with the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, the AFL drafted a policy that adequately covered the issues of the case. Through intense public relations activity, the AFL then successfully communicated the policy and broader social message. The AFL was fortunate that the issues underpinning the Long case had minimal influence on the perceptual or behavioural actions of AFL consumers. The changes resulting from the Long case, such as further acknowledgement of Indigenous contributions to football and Australian society, significantly contributed to enhancing the quality of the AFL competition and its management of similar issues. The AFL has achieved this through effective public relations, particularly through cooperation with the Human Rights Commission and the United Nations Association. The AFL Annual Report (1995: 36) noted:

Racism in football was a major issue for the Australian Football League in 1995 culminating in the AFL receiving a special peace award from the United Nations Association for a number of initiatives to address the issue.

Further AFL actions in 1996 as a direct result of the Long case The Long case refocused the attention of the AFL on dealing with racial and religious vilification, sparking the adoption of a new racial vilification rule by the Australian Football League Commission. The new rule was presented as part of a broader strategy designed to educate the football industry and wider community about why racial abuse is simply not acceptable. In communicating the rule to the public, the AFL stressed the importance of the involvement in and influence of various ethnic communities as well as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander athletes on the game of Australian rules football. In an open letter to the public, through the AFL’s own magazine the Football Record, new initiatives to be implemented were communicated by AFL CEO Ross Oakley (1996):

• A cross-cultural diversity program for AFL staff and senior AFL club officials. This program has been developed by the Victorian Aboriginal Education Association and will be held during late July. We will also be encouraging clubs to follow the lead of the West Coast Eagles and Footscray to run their own programs. • Developing a proposal for consideration by the federal government for funding to assist the employment of Aboriginal development and liaison officers in each state. This would be similar to the employment of Gilbert McAdam as a development officer with the Queensland Australian Football League, whose job is jointly funded by the AFL and the Department of Employment, Education and Training. • Developing a public education program, initially utilising a television commercial, to change the attitude and behaviour of spectators. The television commercial is being produced this week by our advertising agency, the Campaign Palace, and is expected to be on-air within two weeks. It will carry the tag line ‘Racism: The Game is Up’. • In conjunction with the Australian Football Foundation, review the extent of football being played in Aboriginal communities throughout the country, what funding is currently available and how further junior development programs can be implemented in those communities. This is part of an overall review of football development around Australia. • In conjunction with the Directorate of School Education in Victoria, the AFL has agreed to participate in a program designed to help combat racism in Victorian government schools. The program will involve Aboriginal players and other high-profile athletes visiting schools to educate youngsters and talk about racism in sport. • Each AFL coach has also received a letter from the AFL this week reinforcing the role they can play in stamping out on-field racial abuse, which in turn will set an example for supporters off the field.

This case has presented a range of issues related to the participation of players of Aboriginal and ethnic descent resulting in racial taunts and vilification which unfortunately have been widespread throughout the AFL competition and (Australian) sport in general. Main case analysis was done from a public relations perspective, the Long incident raising a series of league-related and community issues. As the governing body, the AFL was placed under significant pressure to act on behalf of Aboriginal players and the broader Aboriginal and ethnic community. The case addressed most of the issues in an effort to prepare acomprehensive paper for class analysis and discussion. (The case is in no way intended to illustrate academic (empirical) proof for either effective or ineffective handling of issues by persons or organisations described.) Source: Ashley Wain originally wrote this case in 1998 as part of the Graduate Diploma of Sport Management at Deakin University. The case was updated, extended and edited for inclusion in this text by Hans Westerbeek and Ashley Wain.

Questions:

1. The public relations crisis experience described in the extended case study can be utilised to examine effective crisis management. A major contributing factor to initial action by the AFL was pressure to implement short-term public relations planning strategies. Considering this point, how can sport organisations more effectively devise PR policies under such time constraints?
2. 2.The roles Damien Monkhorst played in the case was low profile. Do you think he made the right decision when deciding to stay away from the media, simply denying the racial vilification claims? Could he have handled the situation differently?

3 Can highly sensitive issues like racial vilification be used by certain interest groups to draw public attention to other causes of importance to them? Is this morally/ethically acceptable?

4 Can governing bodies like the AFL use negative publicity and turn it into positive publicity? How?

5 To be (or become) a good ‘corporate citizen’ is rapidly becoming an important strategic goal of many (multinational) organisations. In the context of this case, is ‘corporate citizenship’ an important (strategic) matter for sports organisations? Justify your opinion.

Answer 1

Ans 1

Effectivity requires a thorough understanding of the situation whereas time constraints demand quick action. To achieve both, an organisation needs to quickly muster all its strategic assets (human capital, finances etc.) and prepare an action plan- delegating duties as per respective capabilities and strength. A good PR pitch should be developed immediately.

Next, it is important to connect with your target audience promptly. For this, you should focus on popular/most used communication channels like social networking sites, mobile messages, even emails maybe!, to reach out right away. Press releases, conferences, appearances on football programs etc are all good strategies for PR...but they take time. Your endeavour should be to prevent negative emotions from taking seed at the soonest. It is better to prevent and control the negativity in advance rather than waiting and watching the damage occur and then clean it.

Ans 2

Staying aloof in the heat of the moment is what people usually do in controversies. This something legally advised too. Denials and acknowledgemets should be avoided in the absence of legal counsel.

Handling the situation differently would have meant Monkhorst coming out in the open - which would only worsen matters further - providing the mentioned interest groups (government & community groups) with fuel to add to the fire. It could lead to a lawsuit against Monkhorst, also roping in the AFL - further tarnishing its reputation.

Ans 3

Yes. Sensitive issues like these are the bread and butter of political parties and community welfare associations all around the world. On moral/ethical acceptability, obviously putting individuals under the spotlight (in our case it's Mr Long) and discussing them in and out, creating an agenda out of their misery for self-promotion seems unethical. But when viewed in terms of societal benefit - i.e. increased awareness, group movements, promotion of tolerance and peace - resulting in "inclusiveness" i.e. acknowledgement of and peaceful coexistence with different cultural groups, perhaps there's also some good in it.

Ans 4

Firstly, you need to appreciate criticism. Positivity lies in accepting what's wrong and mending your course of action. To turn negative publicity into positive, an organisation needs to-

• Acknowledge its mistakes and apologise
• Focus on the problem and its resolution
• Share these efforts with all stakeholders (to let them know that it's taking the issue very seriously)

We can see that AFL's approach is of the same nature. It acknowledges the existence of racism in Australian Football, devises a plan to deal with it in consultation with the right bodies (Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commissions), and announces a policy of intolerance towards racial vilification to solve matters. We also see that it wins a peace award from the United Nations Association for its initiatives in this regard.