Thread: Manly facing player revolt over pride jersey for NRL match against Sydney Roosters

Several Manly players are considering boycotting Thursday night's match with the Sydney Roosters over the Sea Eagles' decision to wear a gay pride jersey in the fixture.
Key points:

• Manly officials are meeting with players on Monday night
• Some players are unhappy they were not consulted by the club
• Club great Ian Roberts says he is disappointed to learn of the response of some of the players

The Sea Eagles announced on Sunday night that they would wear an LGBTQIA+ jersey for the match, with a rainbow design replacing the strip's white hoops.
But that decision has caused some unrest among players who are unhappy they were not consulted by club management.
Kieran Foran, Reuben Garrick and Sean Keppie were among those to help launch the strip but other players claim they learned about the move over social media on Sunday night.




Their concerns relate to questions that could arise from within their respective cultures.
Manly's management were to meet over the issue on Tuesday but that was set to be rushed forward to Monday night.
Club great Ian Roberts, who in 1995 became the first rugby league player to come out as openly gay, told The Daily Telegraph he was disappointed by the response of the players not willing to wear the jersey.
"I try to see it from all perspectives but this breaks my heart," Roberts said.
"It's sad and uncomfortable. As an older gay man, this isn't unfamiliar. I did wonder whether there would be any religious push back.
"That's why I think the NRL have never had a pride round.
"I can promise you every young kid on the northern beaches who is dealing with their sexuality would have heard about this."


Manly facing player revolt over pride jersey for NRL match against Sydney Roosters - ABC News

It's a weird one . . . mainly Pasifika players (Josh Aloiai, Jason Saab, Christian Tuipulotu, Josh Schuster, Haumole Olakau’atu, Tolutau Koula and Toafofoa Sipley.) claiming religious reasons . . . reminds me of the Israel Folau issue.

I doubt they would have agreed even with prior consultation

Right? Wrong? Is it in their contract, or words to that effect regarding management decisions . . . Tough one.

Originally Posted by panama hat

reminds me of the Israel Folau issue.

Exactly.

Originally Posted by panama hat

mainly Pasifika players (Josh Aloiai, Jason Saab, Christian Tuipulotu, Josh Schuster, Haumole Olakau’atu, Tolutau Koula and Toafofoa Sipley.) claiming religious reasons

You think Manly could have predicted that prior to producing the strip?

Originally Posted by panama hat

I doubt they would have agreed even with prior consultation

Agreed. Perhaps the club should have made it optional for the players to wear? Though, that would be divisive too.

Originally Posted by panama hat

Right? Wrong? Is it in their contract, or words to that effect regarding management decisions . . . Tough one.

They are there to play football, or rugby league not champion causes, no matter who worthy, or not.

The difference between Folau and the Manly players who don't want to wear gay pride attire is Folau made statements on his social media that all gays should be shot (or some such homophobic rant) where as these Manly players have said nothing publically, but they want to exercise their right not to promote gay activity due to their personal or religious beliefs.

And that should most definitely be everyone's right, or have we reached the point where employers can force us to promote any minority groups who's cause we may or may not agree with while we do our jobs?

Tolerance is one thing promotion is another I wish sports would just get on with playing sport.

Originally Posted by DrWilly

Perhaps the club should have made it optional for the players to wear? Though, that would be divisive too.

There could be another problem with that you've overlooked.

^^Exactly. What next, a vegan jerseys round or the players needing to group-pray before a game regardless of their religious beliefs? This round is suppose to be dedicated to the women who play or participate in Rugby League at all levels or are part of the NRL family in any way, why Manly decided to make it about gays is beyond me. Although of course there's been 1 (one) gay player in recent history, the unbelievably talented Ian Robert's, and he played for Manly.

Originally Posted by Headworx

The difference between Folau and the Manly players who don't want to wear gay pride attire is Folau made statements on his social media that all gays should be shot (or some such homophobic rant) where as these Manly players have said nothing publically, but they want to exercise their right not to promote gay activity due to their personal or religious beliefs.

And that should most definitely be everyone's right, or have we reached the point where employers can force us to promote any minority groups who's cause we may or may not agree with while we do our jobs?

Of course ppl should not be coerced by state ideology into promoting things they don't really want to deal with. But that's the world we live in. The latest iteration of the rainbow flag is our hammer and sickle. Sit down and get with the program.

Originally Posted by DrWilly

They are there to play football, or rugby league not champion causes

My feeling too. There are simply too many human issues like racism, modern slavery, child exploitation and famine - before getting into broader issues like climate change and pollution. The club, any club in any sport, should leave these issues alone unless there is a complete consensus amongst the players, the management and their sponsors, maybe something like support for people affected by some huge disaster.

It's hardly a promotion. They've just swapped the white piping for a rainbow.

Probably should have more of a problem with the betting sponsors everywhere.

Originally Posted by DrWilly

They are there to play football, or rugby league not champion causes, no matter who worthy, or not.

Exactly. And Gay Pride. Why would a person feel pride for someone else's sexual attraction? It's sport FFS, go and play without politics and other such non-sport nonsense.

Originally Posted by Headworx

The difference between Folau and the Manly players who don't want to wear gay pride attire is Folau made statements on his social media that all gays should be shot (or some such homophobic rant)

True, there is definitely a difference, but this issue seems to rankle many.

Lots of good points here instead of rants - nice.

Originally Posted by armstrong

Probably should have more of a problem with the betting sponsors everywhere.

As well as many other issues - gamblings has a detrimental effect on more people than someone being gay.

Originally Posted by armstrong

Probably should have more of a problem with the betting sponsors everywhere.

Indeed. What a messed up world.

Originally Posted by cyrille

There could be another problem with that you've overlooked.

Play in skins, or training vests?

At least most sports teams were given the option to support BLM, by taking the knee, or not. A team strip is a bit different, yes.

When you are an industrial prostitute you wear the PPE you are given

Originally Posted by baldrick

When you are an industrial prostitute you wear the PPE you are given

Yeah, but the T&Cs when they signed up to play sport didn't include wearing a Gay Pride jersey...

Originally Posted by DrWilly

Yeah, but the T&Cs when they signed up to play sport didn't include wearing a Gay Pride jersey...

…. but probably didn’t exclude it either?

The question is where does the politicisation of sport stop, and who decides what messages are worthy to be delivered and what are not, this I thought was the whole point in keeping sport out of politics.

^Exactly. If the gays get a sniff in the LBTQ brigade will surely say what about us then. Then there's the Judean People's Front to think about too.

It should be noted that only one club out of the 16 decided it would be a good idea to hijack Women's round with this bullshit and the instigator is yet to be identified. It sure as fuck wasn't the Coach or Captain that some gutless cvnt in a suit sent forward to take the fall at the media conference this afternoon though..

Originally Posted by baldrick

When you are an industrial prostitute you wear the PPE you are given

PPE is not about political statements.

Originally Posted by malmomike77

The question is where does the politicisation of sport stop, and who decides what messages are worthy to be delivered and what are not, this I thought was the whole point in keeping sport out of politics.

It is egalitarianism gone insane. Just by questioning this like you just did, means you aren't sufficiently egalitarian enough.

Originally Posted by malmomike77

this I thought was the whole point in keeping sport out of politics.

Politics bolitix.

It is infesting everything now till one cannot breathe anymore.

Sport should be a place where you can forget about this bollix for 10 minutes.

It is enough to make one want to go and live with Uncle Xi and not have to listen to every coont's feckin opinion on everything.

Originally Posted by DrWilly

but the T&Cs

it is all just marketing - the whole cabaret is about separating the people from their money- and the terms and conditions will have included wearing a mankini in hot pink

all the people shouting "politics" are the targets - this is not a taxpayer funded NGO , this is a business^^^^scam all about making the most profit

They should've been consulted but then they're professional athletes paid to play.

It's not like they get to choose the jersey / club sponsors and NRL is intertwined with betting agencies and promotions.

Last I checked that was against their beliefs too, playing on Sundays as well, weird how selective that gets.