revenues was muted by the dominance of the public broadcaster, the ABC. Only
in thefinal decades of the twentieth century did TV revenues and globalization
of some sports lead to major commercially driven change.
Third, government policies, either by omission or commission, have privil-
eged the industry, often in an egalitarian guise (competitive balance) or as a
populist cause (funding stadia or mega-events, or training young athletes to
win Olympic medals or test matches). Anti-competitive practices and suppres-
sion of workers’rights, which are illegal in other parts of the economy, have
been tolerated in professional sports. It is a multi-million dollar industry that
pays virtually no corporate taxes and benefits from large state subsidies.
Unlike other regulated sectors, however, the major beneficiaries are not the
workers in the industry, but rather an unelected and largely unaccountable
group of administrators.^19
Fourth, accounting of spending by clubs, leagues, and governments is non-
transparent, despite the large amounts involved. Much of the spending is
controlled by an interconnected clique of‘WOMBATS’(white old men in
blazers and ties). The professional sports industry cannot be characterized as
state paternalism, but the state acquiesces in a paternalistic structure that
sharply inhibits the individual freedoms of the skilled workers in the domestic
market.
These traits can be found in other countries with similar histories of profes-
sional sports, but comparison with North America and the UK reveals a far
more regulated environment in Australia, especially in sports sheltered from
global competition (e.g. AFL), with a smaller share of revenues accruing to
players and considerable opaqueness about who receives the remainder of the
revenues. Australian governments offer extensivefinancial support to profes-
sional sports, and although similar types of state support can be found in other
countries, among democracies Australia appears to be an extreme case in
the amount of government funding.^20 In North America and Europe, the
twenty-first century has seen increasing public debate about state spending
on professional sports (e.g. funding stadia or hosting mega-events) with popu-
lar grass-roots movements often forcing reversal of spending decisions; in
Australia, such debates are practically absent.^21
The sports industry reflects many traits of Australian Exceptionalism, espe-
cially the paradox of belief in the fair go and individual prowess coexisting
(^19) Other groups benefit from specific policies, e.g. subsidized stadia benefit the construction
industry, and bidding for mega-events benefits public relations and other media companies.
Among potential negative side-effects are the increased opportunities for corruption. 20
The caveat‘among democracies’is to exclude comparisons with autocracies spending huge
amounts on prestige events, such as the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics. 21
The Australian Sports Party won a West Australian seat in the Senate in 2013, but failed to
retain it in the re-run election of 2014. The single-issue party faced little opposition on sports; its only
controversial moment followed release of an election poster featuring a topless female jogger.
Richard Pomfret