I would have to disagree. My mother was a Western Australian and whenever I met up with family from over there I would be hammered with disparaging remarks about League or Union or Football because these were not the Australian game. Similarly with any contact with my Victorian cousins. My recent experience in Tasmania has been the same where you are ridiculed (considered un-Australian) in some circles because you are interested in any of the rectangular pitch codes.

The feeling in the southern states and Western Australia seemed to be that Australian Rules was Australia's national game. They became quite shocked whenever I pointed out to them that over half of Australia's population historically had little or no interest in the game. The game never had a significant foothold in NSW or Qld. The reason being that football had been played in the colony from the early C19th. The football played was based on the game of Rugby as developed over the previous 200 years at the Rugby School in England. When the Melbourne Rules were written down in 1859 football had been established in the colony for over 50 years. The history of the split of the Football Association in England that resulted in the separation of Football and Rugby Union and the latter split of Rugby and League are not for this discussion but it is quite clear that the Victorian game based on the Melbourne Rules did not win over the entrenched football variants in the colony of NSW. This resulted in the minority southern states playing the Australian variant of football and the majority northern states playing the rugby, football, and league variants of football. So the feelings towards Aussie Rules in Sydney that you talk about have their roots in the sporting divide that ocurred in the late C19th and early C20th. No doubt the feelings have been exacerbated by the historical tensions between NSW and Victoria that arose when NSW lost its place as the "centre" of the colonies when Victoria temporarily became the wealth centre following the gold rushes in the 1850's and 60's.

I am not going to buy in to your comments about the lack of skills required for football and union because it is nonsense.

"Much longer history and community involvement"? mmm... how easy it is to come to wrong conclusions based on ignorance of the facts.

Well said Jeffies. What happens on the field is the important stuff.

Sydney is funny with its sport, it seems that most people have a general appreciation of league and soccer, the hills like AFL and the North Shore like Union (I have no idea about the inner city types. Opera?). Of course a statement this vague can't be entirely accurate, but generally, I believe this to be the case. Whats also funny about the non-AFL types i'm friends with, is the lack of substance they have against AFL. They know that because they live in Sydney, they aren't supposed to like it and all they can come up with is either (a) 'Aerial Ping Pong' or (b) (and more commonly) 'Gay-F-L' Clearly intelligent types.

I half heartedly follow league (even more half heartedly this year as the sharks suffer badly) but have only been to two games and found it quite boring live. Since the inception of the A-League, i've become a massive fan of the Mariners and will travel up the coast 5 or 6 times a year to watch them play (would go to every game but it clashes with my playing sport). Love the swannies with a passion and go to every game I can. Cricket is a close second to AFL and always go to the New Years test (and follow the mighty Deccan Chargers). I consider myself a big sports fan, yet whenever I have been to melbourne I seem to be very normal, perhaps showing the difference between Sydney and Melbourne.

Your generalisations aren't too bad. Things may have changed a lot since I left there 20 years ago but the inner city was divided between all four codes depending on the suburb you lived in.

Surely Cross Country Basketball is more apt these days?

Sorry for my ignorance with Sydney geography but which part of Sydney is the hills located?

Really even AFL?

outer NW suburbs. Demographically white, 'aspirational' and it's where Hillsong has its roots and core supporter base. It's unlike the rest of the city.

I tend to think that the ones who dismiss Australian-Rules football are ignoring that it was heralded as the first thing AUSTRALIANS had created, not just British Colonials.


The rules for the "Simplest Game" were drafted in 1862. This preluded the the "Laws of the Game", which organised what is now called Association Football.
Technically, "Soccer" in Australia wasn't FIFA accredited until 1963.
The advantage Aussie-Rules has over Association Football (history-wise) is that it has no over-ruling body, such as FIFA. Therefore there is no logical claim to that statement.

That's new, linking a gold rush to differences in sport by region


Everything else you said makes sense.


I am not too long out of the Victorian State School system and I can honestly say that I never knew how Rugby (regardless of form) worked until I was 15. Moreover, we didn't get differences between League and Union.
There were regional competitions (for League I think), but few schools organised teams due to a lack of interest.
There were less than five Union workshops at High School in my time there, and none for League. My younger brother has a similar experience.
It is all about the Aussie-Rules, Football, Basketball and Cricket teams.

Personally, I fall asleep watching RL; and while I like the Wallabies, I struggle to understand Union.
"Soccer" is my number one choice, followed by AFL and Cricket.

I've played "soccer" competitively since I was 11, but also did Auskick for a number of years as a little boy.
I'm far from alone.

Quite well put really, and its where I live

AFL (the swans) has a reasonable share of the market in the eastern suburbs, probably because of the proximity to the SCG.

It's a mistake to think Australian Rules Football is an Australian creation -it's just another offshoot of Rugby.

If you look at the first written rules of football at Rugby school in the 1840s you will see that it allowed off-side play and allowed players to knock the ball on with their fist. Throwing the ball wasn't banned but was considered against the spirit of the game. Field goals were the most common way of scoring.

Originally Victorian Rules Football didn't allow players to pick the ball up off the ground. The ball had to be kicked off the ground and caught. The rule was exactly the same in Rugby at the time.

The only real difference was that you couldn't run in a try (and tries weren't worth anything at that time). It's also true that Victorian Rules Football didn't have a crossbar, but this isn't that revolutionary because soccer didn't have a crossbar at the time either. As gyfox pointed out above, Rugby and Association Football didn't split into two distinct sports until the 1860s.

All Tom Wills did was write down football principles that were common to the major public schools in England at the time.

Australian Rules Football is actually closer to 1845-style Rugby than either of the nominal Rugby codes are today.

Great and informative post Hass.

Really enjoyed it...

Just like the FJ Holden is a scaled down Chev and the Sydney harbour bridge was built by an English company.

The first game of football that has evolved into what we now know as Australian Football was played with a set of rules influenced by Rugby rules football and Cambridge rules football. Some people say it was influenced by Marngrook and Gaelic football as well,with the "mark" being attributed to the aboriginal game .

In the early days football played under Rugby and Colonial rules were similar enough for the Colonies to play visiting English teams at both games.
The colonies having an excellent record at Colonial football and a good record at Rugby football . Note that the colonies playing these new rules included New Zealand and South Africa .

.