The AFL has acted swiftly against the Appeals Board chair who oversaw the Lance Collard case, sacking Will Houghton KC following his controversial comments.
Multiple reports on Saturday morning indicated Houghton, the chair of the AFL appeals board, had been sacked by the AFL after his comments post the Collard outcome on Thursday night
Watch every match of every round of the AFL Premiership Season LIVE and ad-break free during play on FOX FOOTY, available on Kayo Sports | New to Kayo? Join now and get your first month for just $1.
The league on Friday rejected the Appeal Board’s reasons for slashing Collard’s suspension for using a homophobic slur for a second time.
Houghton’s dismissal comes after the league was reportedly “far from impressed” with the Appeal Board’s chair’s reasons for reducing Collard’s ban to effectively two weeks. In their reasoning to reduce the suspension, the board stated it can be “commonplace that players can employ language from time to time which is racist, sexist or homophobic whilst on the field”.
The reasonings drew widespread backlash from the footy community on Friday morning, with the AFL joining also expressing their displeasure with Houghton’s words.
“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 (by a six-match suspension) for using the same slur. Ultimately a nine-week suspension was imposed,” the league’s statement read.
“That suspension reflected the seriousness of using a homophobic slur on the field and was intended to set a clear standard for our game, particularly given it was a second offence.
“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.
“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 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.
“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.”
The AFL Players’ Association’s CEO James Gallagher also released a statement, taking aim at Appeal’s Board’s comments.
“We are deeply concerned by statements made by the AFL Appeals Board when arriving at its decision on Thursday night,” the statement read.
“The AFLPA does not accept the suggestion that vilification is ”commonplace” on the field between players. 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.
“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.
“Football is for everyone and all players and the AFLPA remain committed to playing our part in building a culture where everyone is valued, respected, and safe.”
St Kilda had argued the nine-week ban (two weeks suspended until the end of 2027) initially handed out by the AFL Disciplinary Tribunal was manifestly excessive and had the potential to put Collard “back on the wrong track and ruin his life”.
The Appeal Board – made up of two KCs and Richmond player-turned-barrister Stephen Jurica – took less than 20 minutes to rule they were right.
And while they disagreed with the Saints’ first submission that Collard should merely be given a hefty financial sanction, they instead handed down a four-week ban (two weeks suspended until the end of 2027).
That is despite Collard being given a six-week suspension in 2024 for his first use of the word, also during a VFL game.
“While the club is disappointed the charge was upheld, it welcomes the reduction in sanction and thanks the Appeals Board for their time and consideration on the matter,” the Saints said on Thursday night.
“The club’s legal team, led by Michael Borsky KC, successfully argued that the original penalty was manifestly excessive.
“The club remains focused on supporting Lance throughout what has been a challenging period and asks for his privacy as he makes his return to play.
“Despite the reduction in sanction, St Kilda remains disappointed with how the matter was assessed and believes greater consistency and clarity in the AFL’s Tribunal process is important moving forward.
“We also acknowledge the impact this prolonged and public matter has had on members of the LGBTQIA+ and First Nations communities.”
The panel found the previous sanction would be “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”.
William Houghton KC said in the board’s reasons: “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.”
It was that initial passage from Houghton KC that angered many, with former Brisbane AFLW star Kate McCarthy leading the pack to speak out against what the Appeal Board had to say.
She took to X to call out its factoring into account that Collard’s victim was not personally offended by the slur, writing: “I am genuinely speechless that this is in print … absolutely baffled.”
She later posted “it gets worse” with a screenshot of an excerpt of the Appeal Board’s reasons. The passage in question read: “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.”
On Friday afternoon, it was revealed that the league was far from pleased with Houghton’s reasons.
Seven’s Tom Morris reported that there’d been “high-level meetings (at the AFL on Friday) to determine the next steps”.
“Senior AFL figures aren’t happy (to put it lightly) with William Houghton KC, following his remarks at the appeals board hearing for Lance Collard last night,” he wrote on X.
AFL Tonight’s David Zita said to expect an imminent formal response from the league, adding it was “far from impressed” with the reasons.
News Corp journalist Lachie McKirdy also took to X to call the decision “the most ridiculous thing I’ve seen” on Thursday night.
“Excusing racism, sexism and homophobia because football is a “hard game” and “competitive”. Spare me,” he wrote.
“This sets a disgusting precedent.”
Reacting immediately after the decision was handed down, AFL 360 host Gerard Whateley appeared stunned.
“That’s not the remit of the Appeal Board to do that. That is a gross overreach on what that panel’s role is,” he said on SEN.
“To dismiss the appeal but then reduce the sentence from seven to two … still guilty, but two weeks? That doesn’t line up with anything that the AFL has done.
“This feels outside the remit of the Appeal Board, frankly, in the way it has operated traditionally. That’s a very odd verdict – it’s been an incredibly difficult space, and I haven’t envied anyone’s involvement in it from beginning to end, but that is incredibly unsatisfactory.”
He added: “That makes no sense whatsoever.”
Former Port Adelaide coach Ken Hinkley added: “I can’t come to terms with the decision there.”
The Appeal Board gave several reasons for the decision, including:
– The previous incident being more serious, involving Collard using the word multiple times while being warned by opponents he should not be saying it;
– His age and difficult background;
– The player he used the slur against was not offended by it personally;
– and “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”.
With Collard also given a two-week ban for striking, in an incident immediately preceding and effectively causing the incident where he used the slur, he will serve a total of four weeks away from footy before being eligible to return.
Originally published as ‘Let’s be clear…’: Appeals Board chair SACKED in scathing AFL move over slur ban reduction drama
