Rugby Australia vs. Israel Folau; A fight that the game does not need
The recent social media posting by Wallabies star Israel Folau sermonizing most of us are hell-bound, pending our repentance, was an act of sheer stupidity that has left the 73-test match veteran’s professional sporting career in a precarious position.
His employer, Rugby Australia, only months ago retained Folau’s services by signing him to a four-year multi-million-dollar contract. They have now issued him with a Code of Conduct Breach Notice, the first step towards terminating his employment as a result of that social media post.
In her address to the media today, Rugby Australia CEO Raelene Castle articulated that the disciplinary action taken by Rugby Australia was not religiously motivated, but one based upon the Code of Conduct and the relationship between Israel Folau and Rugby Australia.
“This is not a religious discussion this is a discussion around the employee-employer relationship and the values and contractual arrangements within that agreement. That’s the basis on which we’ve served him a breach notice,” Castle said.
That is the framework upon which Rugby Australia wants to fight its battle.
It is further reported by Fairfax that Folau did not have a clause in his new contract about his use of social media specifically yet Castle said that “Not within the contract, but there was a number of meetings, documented meetings, that were put … verbally and in writing to Israel about our expectations,” to which Castle stated that Folau agreed.
Why this was not specifically put into the new contract? Rugby Australia wanted Israel Folau to refrain from communicating in a way that would be disrespectful towards a person based upon their sexuality so why take notes about expectations, why not just put it in the new contract?
Perhaps placing such clear restrictions could be discriminatory towards Israel Folau as it was likely that any communication conducted would be through the vehicle of social media about his own religious beliefs that are clearly disrespectful towards homosexuals.
Perhaps placing such a clause in his contract would confirm something that is becoming quite apparent that religion is very much at the centre of this saga and the ability for an individual to express his religious beliefs despite his employment Code of Conduct differing.
This is not the framework that Rugby Australia wants to fight this battle.
It was reported in Stuff.co.nz that Maurice Blackburn principal lawyer Kamal Farouque agreed Folau could make a claim of alleged unlawful termination on the basis of his religion under the Fair Work Act. He said other arguments might also be made depending on the wording of his contract.
Furthermore, it would appear that if both Raelene Castle and Israel Folau agree on the facts as articulated by the Rugby Australia CEO, that may constitute a verbal contract. But would that verbal contract now be superseded by the current signed contract thus making the verbal contract void? A contract that does not appear to include the expectations expressed by Raelene Castle.
This matter is likely headed for the courts yet what is patently obvious is this saga is a fight that Rugby Australia simply does not need to be in.
This decision by Rugby Australia opens the door to the debate about religious freedoms, and the freedom of speech. In making their intentions clear Rugby Australia has now placed itself in its own precarious position, as since the time Noah took up boat building, humans have had differing thoughts and opinions on everything. Surely Rugby Australia are aware of that?
Yet now it appears Rugby Australia are saying certain thoughts and opinions can have you sacked. I was unaware Rugby Australia was turning into a politically correct gulag.
To be clear I am not for the manner in which Folau communicates his faith. To pick a particular Bible passage and publish it along with other material in the post was incredibly insensitive and stupid. A person of his public standing should know better, especially seeing that such behaviour has previously brought the ire of the Rugby Community.
Broadly speaking no person should not be sacked from a job based upon their individual moral or religious beliefs if it does not constitute a serious criminal offence. The game of Rugby has in the not too distant past has dealt with incidents that are in breach of Codes of Conduct that have not resulted in the sacking of the player involved.
Consider former English prop forward Joe Marler, who has had his own social media retorts to Israel Folau recently. Marler himself was involved in a culturally insensitive incident with Welsh prop Samson Lee. In 2016 during a match between England and Wales, Marler called Lee ‘Gypsy boy’, understood to be a derogatory term towards Welsh people.
A judicial committee later found Marler had used “unsporting and discriminatory language towards Lee” and he had, by his actions, “breached World Rugby Regulation 20 (which covers statements that are unsporting, insulting and/or discriminatory by reason of race or ethnic origin) and the code of conduct and brought the game into disrepute.” Marler was fined £20,000 and banned for two matches.
Closer to home, what about Folau’s Waratah and Wallaby teammate Kurtley Beale. In 2014 Beale was embroiled in a distasteful situation with Di Patston, a then-employee of the Australian Rugby Union. It is understood that the issue arose out of an image and a message sent via telecommunications.
Patston later told Fox Sports, “People don’t see that side of it. They don’t see there’s a level of feeling degraded, feeling like you’re worthless. And he actually admits to sending it twice.
“I’m not good. Life is probably the worst it has ever been. I’m alive but there have been times I haven’t wanted to be here.”
Beale was fined $45,000 by the Australian Rugby Union.
As insensitive as that particular social media post by Folau was, is it worse than the incidents concerning Joe Marler and Kurtley Beale? It would appear that Rugby Australia tends to believe so.
Has Rugby Australia considered what impact that may have on other persons of faith within the Australian Rugby Community? Particularly those of Polynesian heritage? Have they considered other persons of faith within the Wallabies themselves who overtly draw the cross of Christ on their wrist tape?
Rugby Australia would be aware that there are over a billion Christians on this planet and the Bible is a central part of the faith, yet by default in intending to sack Israel Folau, Rugby Australia is implying to other Christian players to not openly talk about aspects of their faith. They are in effect muzzling what contracted players can and can’t say about one of the most personal beliefs any person could have.
This is a fight Rugby Australia does not need to be in. Rugby Australia should not place itself as a judge of morality but perhaps use its role as an arbiter between the communities that make up the broader rugby community be it the LGBTI, conservative Christian or the over 45-year-old, tall storytelling, regular schooner drinking community to which I belong.
Rugby is a game that innately makes you more resilient as an individual but it is also a game that brings us together. I’m not sure if sacking Israel Folau would actually achieve the latter. It is an unenviable task Rugby Australia has ahead of them but they should act with prudence, compassion, and understanding.
As should have Israel Folau.
Rugby World Cup stadium guide – Tokyo:
Comments on RugbyPass
Pot Kettle, the English and French teams have done it for years.
19 Go to commentsHas virtually played every minute of previous games. Back row of Li Lo Willie , Grace and Blackadder would be the 1. Crusaders issue is a very average 1st 5 who cannot run. Kicking in general play is also below par They need to put Yong Kemara in. He must have so.e talent for them to bring him down from Waikato. Hoehepa would struggle to play in so.e club sided
4 Go to commentsI hope this a good thing making all these changes!
2 Go to commentsThe Hurricanes are good, especially with a decent coach now. However, let’s be real, the Crusaders and Chiefs are clearly a good degree weaker without the players they’ve lost overseas now. The Canes lost one player. It’s also why the aussie teams ‘seem’ to be stronger.
9 Go to commentsOr you could develop your own players instead of constantly taking from the SH competition and weakening it in the process? With all the player and financial resources these unions have compared to SH countries you’d think they could manage that, or is weakening the SH comps and their national sides an added bonus? Probably.
3 Go to commentsNot so fast Aaron, we might need you in black yet lol. God knows he’d be a lot less nerve-racking than hot and (very) cold players like Perofeta. It’s really a shame Reuben Love isn’t playing 10, we’ve got enough 15 options.
4 Go to commentsAnd those from the NH still seem to be puzzled (and delighted) why NZ’s depth isn’t what it once was. Over 600 NZ players overseas, that’s insane. This sort of deal is why Super Rugby coaches have admitted they struggle now to find enough quality to fill out their squads.
6 Go to commentsArticle intéressant ! La question devrait régulièrement se poser pour les jeunes français originaires de Nouvelle-Calédonie, Wallis-et-Futuna et de Polynésie entre la Nouvelle-Zélande et la Métropole… Difficile pour la fédération française de rugby de se positionner : soit le choix est fait de dénicher les jeunes talents et de les faire venir très tôt en Métropole, au risque de les déraciner, soit on prend le risque de se les faire “piller” par les All Blacks qui, telle une araignée, essaye de récupérer tous les talents des îles du Pacifique… À la France de se défendre en développant l’aura du XV de France et des clubs français dans ses collectivités d’Outre-mer !
3 Go to commentsWrong bay. He needs to come to the REAL BAY which is Bay Of Plenty and have a crack at making the Chiefs.
3 Go to commentsIs Barrett going play full back??? They already have all the centers…
15 Go to commentsForgive my ignorance, I might not fully understand so would appreciate clarification: Didn’t the Bulls have to fly with three different carriers, paid for by the South African Rugby Union, whilst Edinburgh got a chartered flight sponsored by EPCR? Also, as far as I understand it South African teams don’t yet share in the revenue from the competition and are not allowed to host Semi-finals or Finals at home. Surely if everyone wants South Africans to “take the competition seriously” then they must make South Africans feel welcome, allow them to share in the revenue, and give them the same levels of access as the teams from the other countries. Just a reminder that South Africa has a large and passionate Rugby audience. Just by virtue of our teams being a part of these competitions means that more of us are likely to watch the knockout games, even if our teams haven’t qualified. It would be silly to alienate such a large audience by making them feel unwelcome.
19 Go to commentsFirst of all. This guy is very much behind the curve. All the bleating, whingeing, whining and moaning took place days ago already. Not adding anything to the topic other than more bleating, whingeing, whining and moaning. 🍼 Second of all, not one mention of the fact that South African teams can’t get home semi finals or finals. The tournament was undermined and devalued by the administrators. 🤡 Thirdly, football teams often have to juggle selections in mid week games, premier games, champions league games etc. and will from time to time prioritize certain titles over others. 🐒 And lastly FEK Neil, and anyone else for that matter, for insisting on telling teams how to manage themselves. If they make what is largely a business decision that suits them and doesn’t suit you - tough shite. 💩 It’s not rocket science as to why the Bulls did what they did. If this guy is too slow to figure it out (and is deliberately not mentioning one of the key reasons why) then he isn’t a journalist. He should join the rest of us pundit plebs in comments section. 🥴
19 Go to commentsSo the first door to knock on Rob is Parliament followed by HMRC. The Irish Revenue deliver a 40% tax relief rebate on the HIGHEST EARNING TEN YEARS of every pro Irish rugby players contract earnings at retirement. That goes a long way to both retaining their best talent and freeing up wages for marquee players. Who knows, if that had been in place in the UK, you might not have been able to poach Hoggy and Jonny Gray from Glasgow…!!!
3 Go to comments1. True, if that “free” ticket means access to all but the prized exhibit - EVIP only. SA cannot host semis, even if they’ve earned it (see Sharks vs ASM Clermont Auvergne at… Twickenham Stoop). 2. Why no selective outrage over Lyon doing the exact same thing a week earlier? Out of all the countries France send the most “B teams”, why nobody talking about “disrespect” and “prioritising domestic leagues” and “kicking them out”? 3. Why no mention of the Sharks fielding all of their Springboks for the second rate Challenge cup QF? No commitment? 4. Why no mention of all the SA teams qualifying for respective euro knock out comps in the two seasons they’ve been in it? How many euro teams have qualified for KO’s in their history? Can’t compete? 5. Why no mention of SA teams beating French and English giants La Rochelle and Saracens? How many euro teams have done that in their history? Add no quality? The fact is that SA teams are only in their second season in europe, with no status and a fraction of the resources. Since joining the URC, SA has seen a repatriation of a number of players, and this will only grow once SA start sharing in the profits of competing in these comps, meaning bigger squads with greater depth and quality, meaning they don’t have to prioritise comps as they have to now - they don’t have imports from Pacifica and South America and everywhere else in between like “European” teams have - also less “Saffas” in Prem and T14, that’s what we want right? 'If the South Africans are in, they need to be all in' True, and we have to ensure we give them the same status and resources as we give everyone else to do just that. A small compromise on scheduling will go a long way in avoiding these situations, but guess what, France and England wont compromise on scheduling because they ironically… prioritise their domestic comps, go figure!
19 Go to commentsthe success of the premiership can be summarized by : only 10 teams. It makes a huge difference with the overcrowded top 14 (let us not talk about Leinster and URC…)
1 Go to commentsGood for him. The ABs were fooling around again with converted fullbacks that had a penetration of a marshmallow. Laumape or as Aki has shown for Ireland, go forward is important in the centres. If it had been DMac - Aki- Aumua - Ioane- Telea- Jordan in France the final result would have been different.
4 Go to commentsDan Carter a apporté son professionnalisme, des méthodes de travail, un esprit qui manquaient à l’USAP. Son influence, même une fois blessé a été énorme. Et pour citer une anecdote, certains soirs il venait de lui-même à l’entraînement des jeunes pour dispenser ses conseils. On ne peut pas compter ce qu’il a apporté au club en heures de jeu sur le terrain. Est-ce que le club en a eu pour son argent ? Avec la publicité sur son nom et le titre, je suppose que oui.
1 Go to commentsThe SA sides are suffering from a bum rap here. There isn’t a side anywhere in the world that would do things differently in their shoes. They’ve been set up to fail in the EPCR comps by vested interests, with last minute intercontinental travel requirements that costs an arm and a leg to book in advance just on the possibility they might be required. And the total nonsense that denies any chance of home venues is entirely biased and absolutely unsporting. Either EPCR, the Top14 & the Gallagher Premiership get it sorted on a fair and equitable sporting basis for ALL participants or expect the ridicule to continue. Right now, these comps are a joke!
19 Go to commentsSA sides should do the right thing and leave the champions cup, they are lowering the standard with completely one sided games, not up to the right level. The greatest club tournament in the world is being banjaxed by the weak SA sides.
19 Go to commentsCouldnt agree more. SA sides need to show more committment and really have a go at the Champions Cup. Its quite possibly the most prestigious title in Europe and SA sides need to respect that prestige and serve up their best. EPCR needs to do more to ensure that sides from South Africa and sides travelling to and from SA have a better chance in this competition. The Bulls were put in a really difficult position of having to travel there and back in one week. One could argue that this is what the SA sides signed up for and that La Rochelle didnt complain or send out weakened sides despite having to travel to SA and back and play on successive weekends but surely the situation is also unfair on La Rochelle as well and so EPCR needs to think about successive gameweeks and the travel effect of the competition
19 Go to comments