Never assume ethnicity is the problem, without addressing the behaviour

The association between a violent brawl at a NPL game and Football Australia rescinding the ban on ethnic club names couldn't be further from the fact, and only helps pernicious issues within Australian sporting culture remain unchallenged.

The association between a violent brawl at a National Premier League (NPL) game and Football Australia (FA) rescinding the ban on ethnic club names couldn’t be further from the fact, and only helps pernicious issues within Australian sporting culture remain unchallenged.

The fight between spectators at a NPL game between Rockdale Ilinden and Sydney United 58 on Sunday was an alarming scene of violence. The fight began after a spectator entered the pitch and interfered with a player, which sparked a full-blown melee where objects were thrown by spectators as police were called to quell the conflict.

In the aftermath, media outlets were quick to jump to the narrative that this fight was caused by the FA’s Inclusivity Principles for Club Identity (IPCI). Previously, clubs had been banned from using names that alluded to ethnic boundaries or events at the advent of the A-league and the death of the NSL, under a National Club Identity Policy which was replaced by the IPCI. While the clubs eschewed their ethnic names and insignia during the period this policy was in place, their heritage and supporter base remained untouched.

FA CEO James Johnson was forced to defend the policy on 2GB radio, while host Ray Hadley grilled him on the incident. To argue that the IPCI caused the violence in the stands on Sunday is to ignore a history of violence in Australian sport. Hadley insinuates that this is an issue for football particularly: “It’s almost unheard of in modern-day sport in Australia. Sometimes things get out of hand at Rugby league, Rugby Union, more particularly your sport”. In his favourite sport – one that hasn’t been “captivated by PC BS” as he eloquently states – spectators are regularly charged with assault after violent clashes.

As recently as this year, Parramatta fans fought in a wild brawl with their fellow supporters at a game. The issue is present within AFL, where spectators are regularly charged with assault. In 2018 two men were hospitalised after being attacked after an AFL game in Melbourne by men wearing their club colours proudly. In 2010 at the WACA, during a one-day test between Australia and Pakistan, a spectator stormed the field and tackled a Pakistani player and was charged with assault and trespass. The problem is a cultural one, that is endemic across all of Australian sport. To blame a spectator brawl on something as irrelevant as the name and identity of the clubs involved, while turning a blind eye to a history of violence that is perpetuated throughout Australian sport is to condemn ourselves to never fixing the cause, and never finding the solution.

Even within the world of football, violence between fans is not a new phenomenon despite what critics of the IPCI would like you to think. It happened before the ban on ethnic club names, it happened during the ban, and it will continue to happen after the introduction of the IPCI. Why is this so? Because a small minority of Australian spectators, regardless of their sport, are prone to violence. Violence between spectators is a worldwide phenomenon and amazingly remains so in countries whose populations are homogeneous and don’t divide themselves into clubs based on their heritage or ethnicity.

NSW Police Detective Superintendent Anthony Cooke stated that it was only a small minority of the spectators involved in the melee on Sunday, and there was no clear link to ethnic violence. With the former National Club Identity Policy in place, football was less inclusive of those of other cultures and ethnicity with little benefit to the game, while suppressing communities that embraced the world game.

This isn’t an effort to downplay the violence in the stands on Sunday however, but to blame the IPCI however is to ignore the fact that it is a minority of people who engage in anti-social behaviour. It remains easier to direct fault towards the policy of the FA instead of addresses the cultural issues that remain within football and Australian sport as a whole.

“We need to focus on the behaviours, not the ethnicity,” Football Australia CEO James Johnson stated in his interview with Ray Hadley. To remove spectator violence from all levels of the football pyramid we need to do exactly this. To villainize supporters based on the heritage of the club they support is to ignore the very real dangers of anti-social behaviour that is fuelled by far greater animosity than the name on their badge. Hadley misses this point completely and seems to believe that if the club had an anglicised name then the spectator violence wouldn’t have happened. The evidence shows this is objectively wrong and drawing upon ethnicity is simply a media narrative that damages the clubs and the footballing industry. The NSL, the precursor to the A-league, was severely damaged and ultimately destroyed by this stigma being attached by the media.

Hadley’s and 2GB’s attempted stitch-up of Johnson shouldn’t be a surprise. Football within Australia has a long history of being some sort of ethnic boogeyman, with the foreigner with the strange name being an easy target for disdain. While the FA has made it clear it won’t tolerate this behaviour from spectators, fans, and club officials, it has also taken the correct stance in deciding to punish those who do wrong based solely on their behaviour. While the violent brawl was unacceptable, and those involved need to be heavily punished with bans as Football Australia intends to do, it isn’t unheard of in the slightest. These issues aren’t self-contained to football or ethnically named clubs and are instead just a symptom of a much larger illness in Australian sporting culture. To ignore the violence that continues to permeate with Australian sport in an attempt to blame a policy that
contributes little to the issue will only allow the real causes to remain unchecked.

Previous ArticleNext Article

‘We’re on our own’: Malvern City’s fight for a fair go

At Malvern City Football Club, the problem isn’t finding girls who want to play football.

It is finding appropriate facilities for their growing cohort of young girls to play at.

The club now has close to 100 girls in its female program, built up over the past six years. But at Sir Zelman Cowen Park, which Malvern City has called home for decades, there are no dedicated female change rooms or toilets.

Instead, there are shared facilities, public toilets and, according to club President John Hatzis, situations in which parents, coaches and team managers have had to effectively stand guard so girls can use the toilets without others entering.

“The problem we’ve got is that the public toilets are often locked, or they’re just not accessible,” Hatzis told Soccerscene

The result, he says, is a bizarre and frankly uncomfortable workaround: adults physically blocking the toilets so girls can use them.

That is the human face of what has become a much bigger argument about sporting infrastructure in the City of Stonnington.

It is the sort of arrangement that might have been observed decades ago.

Not something we see in 2026.

Malvern City isn’t a small club asking ratepayers to build it a palace.

It has more than 800 registered players. Its female program is approaching 100 participants. Its junior high-performance program is thriving, while its senior men’s side just earned promotion to VPL1.

And yet its president says the club has spent years being told, essentially, to wait.

“We’re doing everything right as a club,” Hatzis says.

“But every year around this time, we get teams of girls, we get teams of boys coming over to us and we’re saying, ‘We can’t help you. We just don’t have the facilities.’”

That should concern more than just football people.

Where Stonnington chooses to spend

Stonnington is not a municipality that pinches its pennies on sport – far from it.

The council recently completed the Stonnington Sports Centre at Percy Treyvaud Reserve, a $49.9 million project described by council as its largest-ever investment in community sport. The project delivered new facilities for tennis, lawn bowls, cricket, lacrosse, netball and basketball, as well as four indoor courts and more than 200 undercover car spaces. A project where the council contributed $45.9 million.

There are also millions more in the current and forward capital programs.

The 2026-27 budget includes $600,000 for maintenance and renewal works at Malvern Valley Golf Course. Sports-ground asset renewal and oval reconstruction programs amount to about $13.5 million over the forward program to be carried over the next decade. Pavilion renewal is worth roughly $7.3 million over the same period, while outdoor tennis facilities have a forward renewal program of about $3.3 million.

There is a roughly $10.4 million forward program attached to Central Park Pavilion and about $7 million for Waverley Oval Pavilion.

None of this means football is entitled to an equal slice of every dollar.

Many of these facilities are shared between sports. A cricket oval can also be an AFL ground. A sportsground renewal program can benefit soccer as well as football. Money allocated to floodlights or pavilions cannot simply be stamped with one sport’s logo.

A $66 million gap — and a question of priorities

There is no doubt Stonnington, too, has a legitimate argument on the other side.

Council has identified an enormous backlog of sporting infrastructure needs. Its own figures suggest about $124 million in required investment, with only about $58 million currently funded over the coming decade.

That leaves a gap of roughly $66 million.

The council cannot fix everything at once.

But that is precisely why the argument over Malvern City is worth having.

Hatzis does not dispute there are competing demands. In fact, one of the more revealing parts of our conversation was his admission that football itself bears some responsibility.

For years, he says, football clubs have simply found a way to survive.

“The squeaky wheel receives the oil,” he said.

“Obviously, we haven’t been squeaking enough over many decades and we’ve just made do with what we’ve got.”

That is a remarkably candid admission from a club president trying to make a case against his local council.

But Hatzis believes patience has run out.

A decade of planning, but no clear timeline

Malvern City has been at Zelman Cowen for almost half a century. The club says the pavilion dates back to the late 1980s, and despite repeated approaches to council, there is still no funded redevelopment of the facility in the current budget.

The council is now undertaking a 10-year Sport and Recreation Plan for Zelman Cowen, following consultation with more than 400 community members. The park contains five sports fields covering roughly 47,500 square metres and caters for football, Australian rules football, baseball, cricket, athletics and ultimate frisbee.

Council acknowledges that the precinct is under increasing pressure and that its future planning needs to consider accessibility, safety, gender equity and universal design.

But planning is not building.

And a plan without funding is a very long way from a toilet that actually works.

That is Hatzis’ frustration.

“We’re being constantly told that there’s a plan to redevelop Zelman Cowen,” he says.

“But the problem is that there is no funding.”

His estimate is that Malvern City could be seven-to-ten years away from seeing meaningful redevelopment.

Fair Access in policy, barriers in practice

That is where the council’s own rhetoric around women’s sport becomes important.

Stonnington’s sports infrastructure planning recognises that many older sporting facilities were not designed for equitable participation by women and girls.

That is not an abstract policy problem at Zelman Cowen.

There are girls standing outside a toilet.

There are parents being asked to intervene.

And there are young players who, he fears, could eventually decide that the inconvenience isn’t worth it.

“If they’re not willing to fund it, then how long can clubs fund it?” he asks.

That is the question Stonnington needs to answer.

Not because Malvern City should automatically jump to the front of the queue, but because the council needs to be able to explain why it has placed this particular queue in the order it has.

The comparison with other sporting facilities is inevitably going to be uncomfortable.

Hatzis points to the state-of-the-art facilities available to some AFL and cricket clubs. He points to major investment at Toorak Park and the new Stonnington Sports Centre.

His argument is that Malvern City would be prepared to meet council halfway.

Malvern City is willing to meet council halfway

The club would lobby state and federal governments. It would seek private funding. It would even ask its own support base to contribute.

“We’d be happy to go and lobby the state and federal government to help us with the funding,” Hatzis says.

“And even creating some private funding. I’d be happy to get our support base to help with that also.”

That matters, because this isn’t simply a demand that ratepayers write Malvern City’s club a cheque.

It is a demand for a pathway. Give us a plan. Give us a timeframe. Give us something to work towards.

Instead, Hatzis says, the message from council has become increasingly difficult to accept.

“The communication coming down the line that we don’t have any funding is absolutely wearing thin.”

Football’s missing support

One of the more damning parts of our conversation wasn’t even about the council.

Hatzis says he has repeatedly contacted Football Victoria seeking support. He says he has been told someone would contact him to begin an engagement process and that Malvern City is an important part of the fabric of Victorian football.

That call is yet to come, which raises an uncomfortable possibility: perhaps Malvern City’s problem isn’t just that it has failed to convince Stonnington; perhaps it’s that football itself has historically been too willing to accept second-best facilities and making do.

Football has grown enormously in the past 25 years, while girl’s and women’s football in particular has exploded across the past decade. Clubs are increasingly expected to provide pathways from junior participation to elite competition.

Yet the infrastructure beneath that growth has not kept pace.

A story bigger than one club

That is where Stonnington’s own Fair Access Policy becomes particularly difficult to reconcile with what is happening at Zelman Cowen.

The council says the policy is designed to address “known barriers” experienced by women and girls in accessing community sport facilities, before acknowledging in its budget that implementing Fair Access will require “significant new funding”.

It is a remarkable admission: the council recognises the barriers, recognises that its sporting infrastructure needs to change, yet the girls at Malvern City are still being asked to wait for the money to make that change happen.

Malvern City’s story is therefore bigger than one pavilion.

It is about what happens when a sport grows faster than the facilities designed to accommodate it.

And it is about whether councils can continue to promote female participation while asking girls to accept facilities that would be considered unacceptable in other parts of community life.

Stonnington says it has limited resources.

That is undoubtedly true.

But scarcity does not remove the responsibility to explain the choices being made.

If there is $600,000 available for one year’s renewal and maintenance at a golf course, if millions are flowing through tennis, pavilion and sports-ground programs, and if a $49.9 million flagship sporting centre can be delivered, then telling Malvern City simply that there is “no funding” is not really an answer.

It is only the beginning of the question.

Why that facility?

Why now?

Why them?

And why not Zelman Cowen?

Malvern City has spent decades making do.

Its president admits the club has not always been loud enough.

But over the last decade, that has changed.

“We’re doing everything right as a club,” Hatzis says.

“We need to be heard”

Perhaps the real test for Stonnington now is not whether it can find enough money to fix every sporting facility in the municipality.

It clearly cannot.

The test is whether, when the council sits down to decide who waits another decade and who moves forward. Malvern City, a club with more than 800 players, a senior men’s program that is among Victoria’s elite, and a growing cohort of girls can make a convincing enough case to finally move up the list.

Because asking girls to wait years for a proper place to change is not a particularly convincing way to build the future of women’s sport.

Manchester City must pay the ultimate price for financial cheating

Manchester City’s financial scandal has reached boiling point. On the 29th of September, an independent commission found City guilty of all charges relating to serious breaches of the league’s financial rules across nine seasons, from 2009/10 to 2017/18. The commission also upheld three of four charges concerning the club’s failure to cooperate with the Premier League investigation.

The Premier League says City used sham commercial arrangements and disguised owner funding to inflate revenue and reduce costs by more than $1.7 billion (£900 million). Abu Dhabi United Group funded $1.58 billion (£830.69 million) that appeared in City’s accounts as sponsorship money from Abu Dhabi companies. The commission concluded that City’s accounts concealed the true financial position from auditors and regulators.

The 115 charges cover inaccurate financial information, player and manager payments, financial rules and the investigation itself. City has lodged its appeal against the guilty verdict, but for such a serious sporting scandal, attention has already turned to the potential punishments. In a Premier League era where foreign investment is king and revenues have skyrocketed, we should be asking questions. How did Manchester City get away with this for so long, and how can the punishment act as a deterrent to keep the reputation of football’s biggest league intact?

The hack that exposed the story

The most uncomfortable part of this saga is how the authorities discovered it and how most likely City never would have been exposed. In 2018, German publication Der Spiegel published leaked internal City emails and documents obtained through Football Leaks. Rui Pinto, the Portuguese hacker behind Football Leaks, supplied material that alleged City had disguised owner investment as sponsorship revenue and manipulated arrangements to satisfy financial regulations.

The Premier League investigation began in December 2018. City were formally charged in February 2023, after a four-year investigation, and the hearing finally began in September 2024. That timeline is nothing short of extraordinary; eight years between the leaks being exposed and charges being brought to Manchester City does significant sporting damage.

Man City won eight major titles during the alleged period, including three Premier League titles. Recalling titles in any sport leaves a sour taste in any sports fan’s mouth. The fans of opposing sides given titles feel robbed of the special moment, and Manchester City fans could feel rightfully deceived. But it goes beyond even this as we look at who Manchester City signed during those seasons. Players such as Ilkay Gundogan and Kevin De Bruyne played vital roles in City’s later titles beyond the 2017/2018 season. Would they have joined if this had been uncovered earlier? It’s impossible to say, but it shows how City’s early investment from 2009/10 still contributed to their titles in the 2020’s.

The Premier League’s credibility

That delay is not just embarrassing for City; it damages the Premier League. The league is the most competitive and commercially powerful domestic competition in football. Its rules are supposed to create a framework in which clubs compete on sporting merit while remaining financially sustainable. If a club can allegedly distort its accounts by hundreds of millions of dollars and the process takes years to reach a verdict, despite City’s potential obstruction, every other club has a reason to question whether the system works.

The irony is obvious: if Football Leaks hadn’t shared what they found on Manchester City through its hack, the scheme never would have been uncovered. If financial rules were designed to stop clubs gaining an unfair competitive advantage, then the Premier League may need to change how it investigates how its clubs’ finances are being managed. If anything should be gained from this, it may be that financial regulation needs to be improved as the Premier League and its clubs spend billions.

As for Manchester City, punishment cannot simply be a fine that becomes another operating cost.

Relegation is the only serious answer

If the verdict survives the appeal, Manchester City should be removed from the Premier League and those three aforementioned league titles removed. A fine would be inadequate and, depending on what points deduction City got, would punish the club in one season while leaving the historical record largely intact. Nottingham Forest received a four point deduction for a charge of Profitability and Sustainability rules in 2023-2024. City’s 114 charges will see much greater punishment then that.

Even if City are relegated they would almost be guranteed to be promoted the next season so even that feels like a slap on the wrist. Despite their investment during the nine seasons being questioned their five titles subsequent to that period will be expected to remain in their hands. My solution is to relegate City to the Championship without the potential of promotion for three seasons, one for each title won during that time.

City fans will call that harsh but their is strong reason to come down hard and that’s because this is bigger than Manchester City. Foreign ownership has brought huge investment into English football, but investment cannot mean exemption from the rules. Owners, executives and clubs must know that the Premier League’s financial regulations carry consequences that cannot be negotiated away.

The league has a choice. It can impose a manageable punishment and move on, or it can demonstrate that competitive integrity matters more than the commercial power of its biggest clubs. If City’s appeal fails, the answer should be clear: relegation, a reckoning over the titles and a message to every owner that the Premier League’s rules are not optional.

Most Popular Topics

Editor Picks

Send this to a friend