‘Homophobia has no place in AFL’: League chief rejects appeals board’s view on slurs
Updated ,first published
AFL chief Andrew Dillon has rejected his own appeals board’s assertion that it is commonplace that players use racist, sexist or homophobic language in “highly competitive” levels of football.
The league CEO also hit out at the appeals board’s decision to cut St Kilda youngster Lance Collard’s ban from nine weeks to four (with two weeks suspended) for using a homophobic slur. The reduced penalty means Collard will be eligible to play next week.
Dillon released a statement on Friday, saying that the original nine-week penalty “reflected the seriousness of using a homophobic slur on the field”, particularly given it was a second offence.
Collard was rubbed out for six weeks in 2024 after he admitted using the term “f----t” several times during a VFL match.
“The appeals board last night imposed a four-week suspension, with two matches suspended until the end of next year. In the AFL’s view, stronger action was not only warranted – it was necessary,” Dillon said on Friday.
“Let’s be clear: homophobia has no place in Australian football. Not at any level. Not under any circumstances.
“The AFL specifically rejects the appeals board’s reasoning which stated, ‘it is commonplace that players can employ language from time to time which is racist, sexist or homophobic whilst on the field’.”
The appeals board did not say that this should be an excuse, and it did not condone that language in any way.
“The AFL strongly rejects the statement not only that such language is commonplace, but also any implication that may be a factor in determining the severity of the sanction,” Dillon said in comments later echoed by the AFL Players’ Association.
“We will not accept, excuse or normalise behaviour and language that demeans, discriminates or vilifies people based on who they are.
“We acknowledge there are always broader considerations in these matters, and they must be handled with care. But they do not override the responsibility everyone has to meet the standards of the game.
“We are clear on where we stand. Respect and inclusion are not optional in our game – they are fundamental. The AFL has communicated its concerns in relation to these matters to the appeals board members.”
Sources not authorised to comment publicly confirmed the AFL would not take the Collard case any further but the matter would prompt a review of its disciplinary processes, including the tribunals.
Collard was found to have used homophobic language in a match against Frankston late last month by the AFL disciplinary tribunal, but the player claimed he said “maggot” and did not use the phrase “f---ing f----t”. The appeals board did not overturn that finding.
AFL Appeals board judgment
The Appeal Board is required to deal with every case before it on its own facts and circumstances. In this case, Collard suffered a sanction of nine weeks, which was cumulative to the two-week suspension he had already suffered for a strike to an opposing player in the same game.
Two weeks of that penalty was suspended. The Tribunal had regard to a number of matters in coming to that decision. There had been a number of previous decisions which suggested a range of penalties for players using the term f*****t, which was between three and six weeks.
However, in none of those prior decisions did the Tribunal have any role, because the AFL and the player had come to an agreement. There was also reliance placed by the tribunal upon a prior conviction of Collard in 2024 when he received a six week sanction using the term f*****t a number of times during the course of the game to several opposing players, and that he was warned about using that term.
Again, it was an agreed sanction between the AFL and the player. That conduct though was clearly in a worse category than the present incident, where the phrase was said once to two players who recollected.
We observe that football is a hard game. It is highly competitive, particularly at its higher levels. It is commonplace that players can employ language from time to time which is racist, sexist or homophobic whilst on the field.
We observe that it’s to the credit of the AFL and the Tribunal that its efforts to eliminate these comments appear to be succeeding.
However, that cannot be at the price of imposing what this board considers to be a crippling penalty on the appellant of this case. We describe it as crippling because there was evidence before the Tribunal in the sanction in both hearings that a penalty of this extent would finish him off as a player of professional football.
We note the following in regard to Collard. First, his previous misconduct in 2024 was more serious, and probably far more serious than the present offence. Secondly, his age. He’s a young man and he’s indigenous.
Thirdly, his difficult background, of which evidence was led.
Fourthly, the fact that the recipient of the remark, Hipwell, was not offended by the comment. Fifth, he had at that time struck an opposing player, given away a free kick and had been jostled, roughed up and verbally challenged by a number of his opponents.
We’ve also had regard to the fact of general and specific deterrence in coming to our own view on the penalty.
Ultimately, the Appeal Board has come to the view that the sanction imposed on player Collard by the Tribunal was manifestly excessive.
In lieu thereof, we would impose a sanction of four weeks, with two weeks suspended for the remainder of this VFL/AFL season and the 2027 VFL/AFL season, cumulative to Collard’s two-week suspension for striking.
“At the disciplinary tribunal that first heard the matter, the AFL sought a 10-week suspension for Collard, noting that Collard had in 2024 admitted and been sanctioned for using the same slur,” Dillon said.
The AFL appeals board sat on Thursday night and found the nine-week ban to be “manifestly excessive”. Led by William Houghton, KC, it came under fire for parts of its judgment.
St Kilda welcomed the reduction in Collard’s penalty but said they were disappointed the charge was upheld.
AFLPA chief James Gallagher said the players’ union was “deeply concerned” by some of the appeals board’s statements, rejecting any suggestion that on-field vilification between players was commonplace.
“No matter how hard or competitive the game is, there is no excuse for racist, sexist, or homophobic language and this language is hurtful to communities beyond the individual it is directed at,” Gallagher said.
“Every step of this process has caused more harm to the LGBTQIA+ community, the First Nations community, and the individuals at the centre of this issue, and that is something the industry must deeply reflect on. We have a shared responsibility to develop an approach that is fair, minimises and remedies the harms caused, and shifts behaviour.”
Retired AFLW players Kate McCarthy and Steph Chiocci were among those disappointed by the judgment delivered by the appeals board.
McCarthy questioned why the board considered the fact the alleged victim – one of two Frankston players who gave evidence – “was not personally offended” by Collard’s abuse.
“I am genuinely speechless that this is in print ... Absolutely baffled,” McCarthy, also a Seven commentator, posted on social media.
“What the hell? I have no way to describe this. It is actually baffling. So much for every policy in the AFL saying there’s zero tolerance – ‘there’s zero tolerance for racism, there’s zero tolerance for sexism, there’s zero tolerance for homophobia’.
“This decision and this explanation of this decision go against everything that the AFL has claimed to stand for. This is disgusting.”
The appeals board finding went on to say: “We observe that it’s to the credit of the AFL and the tribunal that its efforts to eliminate these comments appear to be succeeding.
“However, that cannot be at the price of imposing what this board considers to be a crippling penalty on the appellant of this case.
“We describe it as crippling because there was evidence before the tribunal in the sanction in both hearings that a penalty of this extent would finish him off as a player of professional football.”
Adelaide star Izak Rankine was rubbed out for four matches on the eve of last year’s finals period for directing a homophobic slur towards a Collingwood player, Gold Coast defender Wil Powell was suspended for five for a similar offence in 2024, while Port Adelaide forward Jeremy Finlayson copped three in 2024.
In reducing the penalty, the appeals board also considered Collard’s age, the fact he was Indigenous and had come from a difficult background.
“He [Collard] had at that time struck an opposing player, given away a free kick and been jostled, roughed up and verbally challenged by a number of his opponents,” the appeal board found.
Collard was also suspended for two games for the hit that triggered the incident.
The appeals board noted that Collard’s earlier ban for using a homophobic slur was an agreed penalty between the AFL and the player, and did not involve the tribunal.
“That conduct, though, was clearly in a worse category than the present incident, where the phrase was said once to two players who recollected,” the appeal board found.
Greens senator Nick McKim weighed into the controversy on Friday afternoon, releasing a statement saying the decision to “reduce a penalty imposed for a homophobic slur is appalling, and its statement of reasons makes it even worse”.
“This would not fly in any other workplace in the country and nor should it,” McKim said.
Keep up to date with the best AFL coverage in the country. Sign up for the Real Footy newsletter.
