Nicky Winmar statue removal and AFL Hall of Fame expulsion after assault conviction

Consensus Summary

The removal of Nicky Winmar’s statue from Perth Stadium and his expulsion from the AFL Hall of Fame have dominated headlines after his conviction for assaulting a woman in May 2025. Winmar, a former St Kilda and Western Bulldogs player, was found guilty of two counts of common assault and one count of unlawful assault in a Victorian court this month (July 2026). The statue, unveiled in July 2019, depicted his iconic 1993 stand against racial abuse during an AFL match, where he lifted his jersey and pointed to his skin. Both the Guardian and ABC report that the statue was swiftly removed after his conviction, with WA Premier Roger Cook citing the need to send a strong message against violence toward women. The AFL also confirmed it was reviewing Winmar’s Hall of Fame status, a decision that was finalized with his removal from the prestigious honor.

The controversy stems from Winmar’s dual legacy as both a symbol of resistance against racism and a figure convicted of domestic violence. The statue was commissioned by the AFL and unveiled during NAIDOC Week in 2019, intended as a powerful symbol of Aboriginal pride and opposition to racism in Australian sport. Winmar’s 1993 stand at Victoria Park was pivotal in sparking national conversations about racism and led to the AFL’s first official code of conduct. However, his conviction for assaulting a woman in Cohuna in 2025 has forced a reckoning with his legacy. The Guardian notes that Winmar’s case is not isolated, as other Hall of Fame players, including Wayne Carey, have faced similar controversies over past misconduct, though Carey’s case was handled differently without removal from the Hall of Fame.

Key figures in the debate have offered differing perspectives on the statue’s removal. Indigenous leaders like Jill Gallagher and Muriel Bamblett argue that the statue represented a broader movement against racism and that its removal should have been preceded by community consultation. Gallagher, a domestic violence survivor, emphasized that while she does not condone Winmar’s actions, the statue’s significance transcends his personal history. In contrast, Melbourne University professor Marcia Langton supported the removal, stating that celebrating a man convicted of assault would be offensive to women and AFL fans. AFL historian Matthew Klugman criticized the WA government for inconsistency, pointing out that statues of figures like James Stirling, who led the 1834 Pinjarra massacre, remain untouched despite their violent histories. The Guardian highlights this double standard, noting that public spaces often honor colonial figures tied to the oppression of Aboriginal people.

While both the Guardian and ABC agree on the core facts—Winmar’s conviction, the statue’s removal, and the AFL’s review of his Hall of Fame status—they differ in emphasis. The Guardian delves deeper into the historical context, comparing Winmar’s case to other controversial figures in Australian sport and public memory, such as Barry Cable and Wayne Carey. It also explores the broader debate about memorializing figures with complex legacies, particularly those tied to colonial violence. ABC, meanwhile, focuses more on the immediate events, including the timing of the statue’s removal during NAIDOC Week and the specifics of Winmar’s court case, such as the woman’s testimony about the assault. The ABC also provides more detail on the logistics of the statue’s removal, including the use of a crane and the involvement of VenuesWest.

The unresolved question remains what will happen to the statue and Winmar’s legacy moving forward. VenuesWest has stated that the statue will be securely stored while its future is considered, but no final decision has been made. The AFL’s review of Winmar’s Hall of Fame status is complete, with his name removed from the honor roll. The Guardian suggests that the swift action taken against Winmar contrasts with the slower responses to other controversial statues, raising questions about consistency in how public institutions address historical and contemporary wrongdoing. As the debate continues, Indigenous leaders and advocates for women’s safety are calling for more nuanced discussions about how to honor historical figures while addressing their flaws, particularly in cases involving systemic racism and gender-based violence.