There isn’t a lot for the rugby league media to discuss right now. A close an unpredictable competition has turned into a standard 10-team finals race and most vulnerable coaches will seemingly see out the season before being sacked.
So the biggest story shouldn’t even be a story at all. International and State of Origin eligibility is much simpler than the media is making it out to be. There are clear and reasonable requirements you must fulfill to be eligible for a particular nation or Origin side. There is no logical reason why a player who is born and raised in Sydney to Samoan parents shouldn’t be able to represent NSW and Samoa.
But somehow, through the media, this is being spun into a highly complex problem. The crux of the issue for many in the media is the fact that now Australia might not always win.
This fear that Australia might lose more regularly has led pundits such as Paul Gallen and Nathan Hindmarsh to suggest that Origin should only for players who have declared for Australia. Brad Fittler on The Sunday Footy Show suggested that for this year’s Kangaroo tour, everyone who played Origin should be available.
Isaah Yeo holds aloft the Pacific Championships trophy. (Photo by Matt King/Getty Images)
Meaning players who have never played for Australia or expressed a desire to do so would be forced to abandon an important part of their heritage and culture to act as a ‘tribute’ to the most powerful national in the game.
What often gets said among all of this is that the players need to simply “make a choice”. This is where it gets particularly disingenuous. The punditry class is almost entirely made up of white former players. Players who never had a choice to make because the only nation they qualified for was Australia.
The issue goes back years but was first raised this year on an episode of 100% Footy where Paul Gallen, Cam Smith and Gus debated who should be eligible for Origin and whether players should be able to have dual allegiances.
What was particularly egregious about this was that it came on the back of multi-cultural round. I don’t know whether it was more depressing or ironic to see the NRL attempt to celebrate multiculturalism only for an all-white panel to debate whether players should be able to represent multiple aspects of their culture.
By far the most nuanced and on point takes have come from Willie Mason on the Levels podcast he hosts with Justin Horo. Justin does a very good job at pointing out how the current rules have negatively impacted New Zealand much more than Australia but Willie comes into his own on this subject.
Why? Because Mason actually had to make the choice as a player. Because he understands what it is like to be pulled in different directions and to have split loyalties.
He talks about the ways in which your understanding of your heritage and the emotions that come with it can change over time.
The reason he is such an important voice in this space is because there are very few prominent figures in the media who have the same experience. There will be when this crop retires, but for now there is a distinct lack of diverse voices to discuss this issue.
Before people start popping off in the comments, no, I’m not suggesting every show needs some sort of diversity or inclusion quota.
Nor am I suggesting that Caucasian pundits are not allowed to talk about this.
But we should all have enough media literacy by now to understand that a higher quality debate involves people with lived experience. It’s why we listen to Andrew Johns talk about Origin or Gus talk about coaching.
So, to all the pundits out there trying to make a story out of nothing by coming up with new eligibility rules that have no basis in logic, please remember this. You’ve got one mouth and two ears.
Spend a bit of time listening to someone with a different background to you and just try to understand their perspective. And no, if Australia only win five out of the next seven World Cups, it’s not a crisis, it’s competition.
