Sport bodies say 'yes' to the Voice. But they should reflect on their own backyards too

• Some proponents of the “no” vote contend that sports bodies should have no place in political debate.
• However, sports bodies have a charter to be engaged with the community and are committed to numerous groups and causes.
• So, while sports bodies are notable advocates of a Voice to parliament, they might want to consider how much of a voice Indigenous athletes have in their own organisations.

Why a ‘yes’ vote?

• Many sport bodies have made commitments to the wellbeing of their Indigenous employees.
• Multiple sports feature Reconciliation Action Plans, and Indigenous cultures often feature in the pre-match ceremonies of major sport events, such as the Welcome to Country.
• Given many sport bodies are committed to Indigenous wellbeing and community engagement, it seems logical for sports bodies to publicly support the Voice proposal.

Political advocacy

• The interplay of sport organisations and social and political causes is hardly new.
• In Australia, an obvious recent example is the vote for same-sex marriage, which was supported by numerous sports bodies.
• These organisations have core values around cultural diversity and policies to promote inclusion, so their support of the “yes” campaign was hardly surprising.

Voices against sport

• For Howard, sport should only be an “escape” from politics, with fans mingling to focus on having a good time and cheering their team.
• The inference here is that a coterie of sport executives has conspired to dictate a position in the absence of any consultation.
• Sport, from the perspective of these naysayers, should be silent on the Voice.

Social responsibility

• Whether the same-sex marriage campaign, empowerment of women or climate change, sports increasingly take a view because they have a responsibility.
• Sports bodies have too often not consulted First Nations’ players or administrators when making decisions for the “good of the game”.