Homophobia on the Field: Are the Current AFL Penalties Missing the Mark?

The recent influx of homophobic slurs used on the hallowed grounds of the AFL has cast a dark shadow over the season, begging the question as to why these increasingly stringent sanctions do not seem to be working.  Beginning in the pre-season with the prodigal return of former player, now coach of the North Melbourne football club, Alistair Clarkson, using a homophobic slur towards an opposition player, to then Port Adelaide’s Jeremy Finlayson and now more recently, Gold Coast Sun’s Will Powell, both of whom used homophobic language to target opposition players.  What are the regulations on these consequences? And more importantly, are they working?

Current Regulations

There are currently two key clauses which regulate behaviour related to discriminatory and vilifying speech. The first is under AFL rule 2.3(a) which prohibits any person from engaging in ‘conduct which is unbecoming or likely to prejudice the interests or reputation of the AFL or to bring the game of football into disrepute’. [1]          

The second, and more specific in denouncing discriminatory behaviour is AFL rule 35. This is also known as the Peek Rule, named after Tony Peek, who spearheaded the anti-discriminatory rule. This rule prohibits any conduct which ‘threatens, disparages, vilifies or insults another person’ on the basis of personal attributes, including but not limited to race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity and more. [2]

The first of these, rule 2.3(a) is far broader and is based on the interpretation of what behaviour is ‘unbecoming’ or ‘likely to prejudice’. [3] Clarkson, Finlayson and Powell were all found guilty under rule 2.3(a) with their behaviour found to be ‘unbecoming’. They were not pursued under rule 35, though the language used was homophobic.

Sanctions

For breaches of any AFL rules, including 2.3(a) and 35, the Regulations set out possible consequences that can follow in 2.1(a)(iv). These include reprimands, monetary penalties, and suspensions. [4]

However, breaches of Rule 35 are a little more elaborate. Evidenced in rule 35 itself, this process includes the lodging of an official complaint, a potential conciliation and mandatory attendance at an AFL-approved education program. For repeat offenders of rule 35.1, the matter is sent directly to the Disciplinary Tribunal. [5]

Are these methods working?

The sanctions applied to this year’s breaches of rule 2.3(a) have gradually increased. It began with Clarkson’s $20,000 fine and a two-match suspended sentence. [6] Whilst this was critiqued for potentially not being harsh enough, especially given Clarkson’s role as a coach and senior figure, it was only a month later when Finlayson received a three-match suspension for his own homophobic slur. [7] A slightly more heavy-handed approach taken this time. Except it was only a month after that in which Will Powell was found guilty of the same breach, this time with a five-match suspension. [8] With the AFL stating that ‘it was appropriate to increase the sanction for such conduct…in close proximity to the last occurrence and in order to further deter such conduct in the future,’ [9] we must ask – are these methods actually deterring those in the AFL world? How is it possible to have three similar occurrences of something that has known to be wrong and condemned for long enough now?

Interestingly, despite all being found guilty under the rule 2.3(a), they were sanctioned with provisions under rule 35.6, being asked to attend mandatory education programs. [10] These programs aim to educate players, officials and those in the sporting world of the consequences of their behaviours and how to make the sport a more inclusive space.

However, recent reports suggest that since Clarkson’s breach in early March, he is still yet to attend and undergo any of these education programs, with Finlayson having reportedly only attended one – despite already returning to the senior side. [11] For a sport desperately trying to protect its reputation and build an image of diversity and inclusion, it appears to be quite weak in enforcing these sanctions for behaviour which has ‘no excuses’ in the game. [12]

What next?

If the AFL is to take this worrying problem genuinely seriously, it needs to begin with greater consistency across its regulations. There is an alarming gap in its Regulations of enforcement mechanisms of these sanctions. There are indeed clauses outlining consequences in failing to pay monetary penalties and attending scheduled education programs, but it lacks clarity on who ensures that these programs are scheduled and attended by sanctioned players and coaches. It would certainly appear to the reasonable person that when an official is undergoing a ban from participating in matches, there would be more time to attend an educational program.

Conclusion

For this repeat issue plaguing the AFL this year to be put to bed, the AFL must be swifter and harsher in following-up the consequences of these sanctions. It is evident that merely handing down a sanction is not deterring players enough, and an absence of enforcement mechanisms does not help in ensuring this behaviour is stamped out of the game. The AFL plays an important role not only in regulating their own behaviour, but setting a standard for the leagues below, right from the VFL down to the junior leagues and Auskick. The lack of transparency on enforcement mechanisms waters down the change possible. The public watching on deserve to know that their players are held to a higher regard and fulfill their obligations as role models in the community. If it is as unacceptable as the AFL claims, there must be greater accountability going forward. Otherwise, as the pattern this year shows, we may only be 3 weeks away from the next homophobic slur incident…

References

[1] Australian Football League, Regulations 2022 r 2.3(a).

[2] Australian Football League, Regulations 2022 r 35.1.

[3] Australian Football League, Regulations 2022 r 2.3(b).

[4] Australian Football League, Regulations 2022 r 2.1(a)(iv).

[5] Australian Football League, Regulations 2022 r 35.8.

[6] Australian Football League, 'AFL Statement: Alastair Clarkson' (Web Page, 11 May 2023) https://www.afl.com.au/news/1083874/afl-statement-alastair-clarkson.

[7] Australian Football League, 'AFL Statement: Jeremy Finlayson' (Web Page, 17 May 2023) https://www.afl.com.au/news/1105547/afl-statement-jeremy-finlayson.

[8] Australian Football League, 'AFL Statement: Wil Powell' (Web Page, 9 May 2024) https://www.afl.com.au/news/1125328/afl-statement-wil-powell.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Australian Football League, Regulations 2022 r 35.6.

[11] Max Laughton, 'Roos Coach Alastair Clarkson Still Yet to Undergo Any Form of Education After Homophobic Slur' (Web Page, Fox Sports, 15 May 2024) https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/teams/north-melbourne-kangaroos/roos-coach-alastair-clarkson-still-yet-to-undergo-any-form-of-education-after-homophobic-slur/news-story/2cd7def662e637c7ec00f0123c0ca983.

[12] Australian Football League, 'AFL Statement: Wil Powell' (Web Page, 9 May 2024) https://www.afl.com.au/news/1125328/afl-statement-wil-powell.