By Midfielder
May 16th 2008 @ 12:16am

Loading ...

---------------
Super 14 tipping now live for sign-ups. Join now and invite your mates..
---------------

The rise of football: who has it hurt?

Historically, football in Australia has sat in strange position. It’s the most international of all the games, with football first, daylight second, and union third.

It has by far the most number of players, and it’s by far the most diverse in regards to cultural support. Yet, until recently, it’s been a bad joke.

With football rejecting its recent past and becoming more mainstream, has it hurt any other code? And is the football code war real or imaginary?

My belief is that management decisions are, by and large, what affects the success of a sport.

By its own hand, in 1955 football choose to set up a new competition which, in time, lead to many of the division of top clubs being of an ethnic origin. The management of old soccer is legendary for being corrupt, hopeless, and inept.

But did this total mismanagement of football mask many other sports and codes failures as it was easy to look and point at football? Thus was borne the assumption that they (other sports) were being well run.

I believe football was such an easy target. Accordingly, very poor management practices by other sports were often overlooked and the good work by the old football heads was also overlooked.

In my opinion, tennis has been the most poorly run sport in Australia.

Tennis in the 1950s was arguably Australia biggest sport. It was played year round, and was a social event for boys and girls to meet at: the Davis Cup, the Australian Open.

On almost every street there was a tennis court. My grandparents could talk at length about which player has a good backhand or was a serve and volleyer, and so on.

Today, tennis courts are rare and few people play at a serious level. Even fewer could discuss the relative strengths and skills of a tennis player.

Tennis looked to the national players and ignored its local courts and clubs. Thus tennis finds itself in a strange position of having an almost unaffordable junior league needing fanatical parents and supporters prepared to take their kids all over the state to play.

Union, well what more can be said of the NSWRU and the ARU, other than that around the world, rugby as a code is expanding, yet in Australia it is declining. Where do you start? Concord oval and the Mac bank, the inability to spread its playing base outside private schools and state academically advanced schools in Sydney and Brisbane.

Has football turning mainstream hurt anyone or is it more that the weaknesses in other codes are being exposed?

My observations are that league, union and AFL all benefited from the 1955 mistake of football, allowing each to develop a loyal media support, without any real contest from football.

Rugby League then gave all the other codes a free kick with its Super League war. It was sitting at the top, with 21 teams and making real inroads in Western Australia and South Australia, not to mention Fiji and other Pacific islands. Then News and Optus had their little set to. Football was incapable of reacting still in its declining years, while both union and AFL attacked and made lots of ground.

After the war, the ARL made in my opinion the second worst management decision in Australian sports history (only football’s 1955 club split was worst) by giving News half of the TV media deals. This now has the ARL needing to get News to approve its own expansion plans.

Kerry Packer loved league with a passion and made it work. Now Kerry Packer is gone and his son James seems to want to leave the media. Kerry Packer has been replaced by Kerry Stokes who has a passion for the AFL in a similar way that Packer had with league. Thus, AFL has a sugar daddy prepared to spend big to support the code.

The AFL has been caught resting on its laurels with massive TV deals, a media baron backer, the Super League war, and so on. The success of the Gold Coast Titans has rushed the AFL into a decision making process about their expansion plans that only time will tell if it was correct. Maybe the media companies forced their hand on the expansion with the need for more exposure in the northern states for increased funding.

So I believe that football going mainstream in itself has hurt no other code or is a threat to any other code. However, by football becoming more accepted, past management practices which were previously able to be smudged over, no longer worked.

While the sports can co-exist happily, the winner of the codes will be that which best manages it’s own path.

Super 14 tipping now live for sign-ups. Join now and invite your mates.

Recently popular

Free Email updates:

Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...

Salvation said | May 16th 2008 @ 7:38am | Report comment

Nice read.

Redb said | May 16th 2008 @ 8:02am | Report comment

Midfielder,

It is straight out wishful thinking to contend that due to soccer dropping the ball in 1955 it gave the VFL in Melbourne a free kick with the media. The VFL was getting crowds in excess of 70,000 in the 1930s!

Redb

Midfielder said | May 16th 2008 @ 8:31am | Report comment

AFL has always had crowds and if that is the yard stick you measure all codes then without doubt AFL is close to the worlds best.

But during the 60’s with 3 commercial TV channels, league on one, union on one and the new boy ten looking around for something to put on. Also not long after WSC, a certain Mr Packer offered the then NSL a massive package if he had ten teams and start from scratch not to different to the A-League now. They told him to FO they LOL could do it better.

So yes AFL has always had crowds but that is not the only measure.

Redb said | May 16th 2008 @ 9:28am | Report comment

I guess the point about crowds is that it generally equals public support. The VFL attracted media due to interest in the game as reflected by crowds. The very early history of Australian football in Melbourne was played out in the media, from the first letter by Tom Wills wishing to establish a game of football in 1858.

I’m not speaking for other codes, just pointing out that Aust football was up and going well and truly by 1955 and was a already a big paper seller back in the ‘day’.

There are more significant decisions in Australian sport amongst the choice of particular States and their football code of choice that date back well before 1955. Som examples, would be the NSW rugby administrators in the early 1900s choosing rugby football over Australian rules and Victorian adminsitrators protecting Aust Rules in Victorian schools from rugby. This all happened a century ago.

Midfielder said | May 16th 2008 @ 10:38am | Report comment

Rebd

We agree on most here, but AFL crowds support is unique in the world, few sports come close to AFL attendences and NONE given how many teams Melbourne, so without doubt the AFL is the best attended sport in the world. But that is not the only measure.

Also to say that by football, own superleague type war, that had it banned from all FIFA events, and had many teams based on race had no harm is foolish. It caused massive harm. Its football greatest cross to bear.

Lazza said | May 16th 2008 @ 11:56am | Report comment

Rebd, crowd attendances are important but with professional sport it’s all about TV Ratings. No competition can survive without TV money. The German Bundesliga gets bigger crowds than the EPL but can’t match the enormous worldwide TV audience the EPL attracts.

AFL is still weak in 55% of the country and won’t get a Billion dollar contract unless it can substantially improve ratings up there. Hence the rush for expansion.

Midfielder, after Football and daylight the next biggest team sport in the World is basketball.

Midfielder said | May 16th 2008 @ 12:34pm | Report comment

Lazza

Sorry you right on the basketball, did not include was in the main talking about football codes.

Redb said | May 16th 2008 @ 1:26pm | Report comment

Lazza,

I was specifically commenting on Midfielder’s comments re soccers’ lack of influence on the media and football code worship by media, circa 1955 and onwards.

The second part of Midfielder’s article more relates to the last 10 years and the future. The AFL faces challenges in its new markets as does the NRL in its non traditional markets. If you were to compare, the AFL is further down the road of true national exposure than the NRL.

But make no mistake, the value of AFL is still very much linked to its mass popularity in the Melbourne market, which is less than 10% smaller than Sydney but may actually be a bigger sports TV market. Crowds and TV ratings are as one in terms of magnitude in Melbourne. The AFL is also the clear dominant player in Perth and Adelaide.

The NRL has Sydney and Brisbane but not to itself like the AFL has in Adelaide and Perth.

If you take the head to head matches in Brisbane a month ago when the top of the table Broncos played the Cowboys at Suncorp v Bris Lions and Hawthorn at the gabba. The NRL crowd was a sellout at 50,000, with the Lions getting circa 33,000. The TV ratings showed a clear win to the NRL but the ratio of total viewers was about 75:25 audience share NRL to AFL.

Contrast this to non traditional NRL market of Melbourne. The audience share is 0 :100 NRL to AFL, as the NRL never goes head to head with the AFL. Now its likely that if it did there would be some NRL audience, but I bet the ratio is nowhere near 25% of the TV audience and its zero in Adelaide and Perth.

In Sydney the Swans may have 15% against the NRL 85%, feel free to dispute that, but I think that’s about right.

The TV deal will be done on the capital city market. in this the AFL has all capitals vovered to varying degrees, the NRL has two with perhaps a third if they ever go head to head, my guess is that any new NRL TV deal, the NRL will require this, but by then Ch 9 may have won back the AFL. Who knows what will happen then.

So i wouldn’t be too so sure the AFL will not get its Billion dollar or whatever increase in dollars contract. The fact is western Sydney will take a decade to work, the deal will be done primarily on the Swans in Sydney. The new Gold Coast team and Brisbane provide definite immediate upside for the AFL.

You look at AFL through NRL NSW/QLD eyes and its comparitively weak position to NRL in those states and judge the AFl has no chance against he NRL based on its TV ratings performance in comparison . I look through VIC AFL eyes and can comment that the AFL has never been stronger in its heartland and offers massive market presence in 45% of the country, but has a small but significant share of the 55% when added on.

In any case, 750M to 1,000M is only about 30% after five years, inflation running at 4% is 20% of that. The AFL may only need a 10% real growth to get the $1B.

It’s all debatable.

Lazza said | May 16th 2008 @ 2:17pm | Report comment

Rebd, that’s all true and the AFL should be congratulated on it’s success but sponsors want NATIONAL coverage and value for money. The Swans and Lions get fair TV ratings up there, I don’t think they’ve been beaten by SBS’s Iron Chef for a while.

The problem is if you ever try to show say Port Power v Freo in those markets. You would probably be out rated by an Elvis Presley movie. When a sport gets good crowds but very modest TV ratings it confirms people’s thinking that it’s mainly the expats that are driving the sport up there. That’s why the Rugby codes haven’t faired as well down south, most of the internal migration in the last 40 years has been southerners going up north.

Lazza said | May 16th 2008 @ 2:39pm | Report comment

You are right Midfielder, all sports can co-exist. I don’t think things are going to change that much in the next few years. AFL will continue to dominate the southern winter market, NRL the northern winter market and football will continue with it’s steady progress in summer.

The only thing that will change is that a lot of aging baby boomers will die off and we won’t hear so much whinging about football.

Redb said | May 16th 2008 @ 2:49pm | Report comment

Freo v Port would not rate in Melbourne either. Friday or Saturday night games always feature Vic clubs (finals aside). The value is showing the home grown team in their home market that will appeal to the local fans of that club. If you can offer two local clubs instead of one, that will attract growth and produce derbies.etc. Each market offers big TV audeicnes, that is why is aid melb is still the msot improtant to the AFL, becuase anytime Collignwood, Essendon, Carlton, Richmond, H\awthorn play they get huge ratings in Melb and thus a big chunk of this got the $750M.

There is no doubt the AFL benefits from northern migration but not to the extent that would make much of a difference in crowds and TV ratings. For example, the Swans pulled 45,000 to the last game at ANZ against West Coast. Now your not telling me that most of the crowd were made up of expat Vics and WA folk surely. Last year the Swans pulled 60,000+ crowds three times.

I think the sisue is that the AFL has been longer at its expansion, has excellent junior programs and marketed the game fairly well in the eastern states. This is not AFL is better then NRL, but a reality. Despite some big mistakes with the Swans and Bris Bears in the first decade, the AFL perservered until they got it right ( a solid niche and presence).

My read of the Storm in Melbourne which i have expoused a few times, is that the Melb Storm has only really got its act together off the field in the last 2-3 years but still hasn’t quite got its PR machine working that well. Unlike the Swans who used icon players like Tony Lockett to get a high media profile, followed up by Big bad Bazza, Spida Everitt, none of the Storm players do any general media. They come across very reluctant to be here and it shows. (hold the weather jokes )

you’d think as an NRL fan, that Billy Slater, Greg inglis, Folau would be superstars in sports mad Melbourne - their known but hardly in that category. No Storm games are shown live, no Storm games are shown head to head on a Friday night, Saturday night. Even the last Monday night game agaisnt the Knights was only available on Foxtel, they would have had the night to themselves.

So everytime an NRL fan jokes that Iron Chef is more popular than the Swans in Sydney I think the Storm don’t even out rate the test pattern in Melbourne. The point for the AFL is at least the games are shown in the first place.

Lazza said | May 16th 2008 @ 3:31pm | Report comment

Didn’t know Vic’s were so parochial Rebd. All AFL games get good ratings in Adelaide with the Crows and Power obviously of most interest.

That’s when you know a game is truly National, you can show non local teams and still get healthy ratings. Basketball was not considered a major sport in the USA until the 1980’s because games would only get good ratings in their local market.

A certain Magic Johnson changed all that and Basketball became a truly national sport in the US.

Paul said | May 16th 2008 @ 3:58pm | Report comment

Sports by popularity ranking in the world. (my rough guess)

1) Soccer
2) Cricket
3) Baseball
4) Basketball
5) Rugby Union
6) Ice hockey
7) NFL
AFL
9) Rugby League

Other than than I don’t have anything to argue with. Midfielder, this was mostly an intelligent article. I would have to agree with Red B about your argument over the 1950s. I wonder why you haven’t offered anything this good on the debate about how big soccer is internationally. Still, I guess that is your prerogative.

Redb said | May 16th 2008 @ 3:59pm | Report comment

Basketball is huge in the States, my daughter has been offered a College scholarship to a New Hampshire university as they love junior Aussies do to work ethic and skills development even at 17 yrs Old. Apparently women’s basketball in the UA starts later at about 14, whereas our kids are running around from 9-10 years old.

Even College basketball games get 10,000 - now that’s parochial.

The Big V

Paul said | May 16th 2008 @ 4:14pm | Report comment

Red B,

Congrats on your daughter getting a scholraship, you must be tickled.

Paul.

Lazza said | May 16th 2008 @ 4:16pm | Report comment

Paul, Cricket may have India but that still leaves 80% of the World. Since we compete against nations not populations that means something like 95% of the World’s nations don’t play Cricket.

Basketball would be the 2nd biggest sport in the World. Crucially, all the World’s great sporting nations from the America’s, Europe and East Asia play the game. Only ex-empire nations play Cricket.

Paul said | May 16th 2008 @ 4:31pm | Report comment

Using your criteria I agree with you. It would be interesting to see how this changes in years to come with the injection of IPL money.

40/20 said | May 16th 2008 @ 5:05pm | Report comment

Paul how the hell do you end up having australian rules bigger than rugby league on a world scale
Apart from victoria sa and wa nauru where else are hotbeds for aussie rules compared to league
And basketball is bigger then cricket and baseball.

Midfielder said | May 16th 2008 @ 8:14pm | Report comment

Your comments about the future ………. the next ten years is going to be interesting.

AFL has over its history been very well run, yes there have been times when it could have been better run but never poorly run or even close to poorly. As an aside I think Jackson was perhaps the best ………… not saying AD is bad just think Jackson had something special.

But Jackson never had to deal with a well run football code, nor the contest for the big TV deal that’s taking place over the next few years. With League saying it’s bigger on all Australia count ——— don’t wish to debate this TV rating over who is right but that it must be very important given the attention the AFL & NRL are giving it.

IMO that code that best manages it’s own path will come out on top. Both Football and the AFL have very clearly defined plans about the next few years. I think NRL & ARU don’t have clear plans ……….. well what I can see anyway.

AFL to expand its northern presence via new teams in WS & GC, while trying to create an international profile of some kind as a buffer to a perceived weakness in the AFL armory.

Football to expand to 12 teams, create a women’s league & youth league, qualify for Asia & World cups, plus do well in Asian Club Champions League. This is a big ask and football to achieve its end is appealing to both AFL / NRL / Union fans to also watch football in summer. Risk Reduction is the fancy name for it but it is IMO a very clever bit of planning.

I have seen no such evidence from either the NRL or ARU to forward planning. As I mentioned in my article the NRL’s decision to have News as a 50% partner is causing real concern with the rusted on hard core leagueies as they feel the need to get News boards approval to do most things and from what I have seen that is not easy to get. Even Gallop is a former News employee.

The ARU …… can …. JOH ………… keep it at its current level and or have growth. To me it looks outside his control and will depend upon what NZ & SA unions feel about growing S14 at the expense of their local leagues. Years of inward looking thinking ( see management inward looking) are coming home to bite hard ——— number of juniors (real count not same player at school, local park team, attend skills training countered as 3), ——— quality of players they have compared to other codes. The more the Socceroos grow in stature the less the Wallabies brand can grow outside already existing fans.

Given my belief that management decisions and forward planning are the key to the future I think both the AFL and Football will grow, …………. As I see it due to an apparent lack of planning the NRL & ARU will be in decline.

Midfielder said | May 16th 2008 @ 8:35pm | Report comment

Baseball 2 en biggest world sport …………… its big ………….. but number 2 ………… big call ………… I would have through Basketball, Tennis, Golf.

However it departs from my topic a tad, ………. regarding the importance of management in both growing a sport, and keeping a sport at its current level. Tennis was my example of a sport that had it all, courts everywhere, international matches, game played by man, women and even mixed. In the 50’s & 60’s with a steady stream of champion players what could go wrong. TBH I can never see Australia a power in Tennis agian its just a numbers game not enough quality people play it. IMO very poor management led to this.

Would be very interested on your comments about your views on past management decisions either good or bad and how they are playing out today, and what you think of the various sports forward planning.

Midfielder said | May 16th 2008 @ 8:36pm | Report comment

Sorry forget to say I agree your comment about TV money and sport ………….. they are closely related.

Paul said | May 16th 2008 @ 9:59pm | Report comment

40/20

Calm down mate. Aggregate numbers. Simple.

Photon said | May 16th 2008 @ 11:14pm | Report comment

Lazza India has a Billion people, if you’re number one in India you are num,ber one in a country that has roughly a third of the worlds population So that figur alona already supercedes that 20% you refer to, when you add Bangladesh, Pakistan and so on Cricket ends up being a pretty big player and quite feasibly second!! Asfor Basket ball and Baseball coming before rugby, I need to google some stuff

Photon said | May 16th 2008 @ 11:28pm | Report comment

Soccer. 3.3-3.5 Billion Fans. (Europe, Africa, Americas,etc) 2) Cricket 3-3.3 Billion Fans. (India,U.K,Pakistan,Asia,Australia,etc) 3) Field Hockey. 2-2.2 Bilion Fans. (Asia, Europe, Africa, Australia) 4) Tennis. Around 1 Billion Fans. (Europe, Americas, Asia) 5) Volleyball Around 900 Million Fans. (Asia, Erope, Americas, Australia) 6) Table Tennis Around 900 Million Fans. (Asia, Europe, Africa, Americas) 7) Baseball Around 500 Million Fans. (U.S,Canada, Japan) Golf Around 400 Million Fans. (U.S, Canada, Europe) 9) Football 390-410 Million Fans. (U.S, Canada mainly) 10) Basketball Not more than 400M Fans. (U.S, Canada mainly)
Wikepedia answers

Photon said | May 16th 2008 @ 11:31pm | Report comment

The worlds most popular sports
1) Soccer. 3.3-3.5 Billion Fans. (Europe, Africa, Americas,etc) 2) Cricket 3-3.3 Billion Fans. (India,U.K,Pakistan,Asia,Australia,etc) 3) Field Hockey. 2-2.2 Bilion Fans. (Asia, Europe, Africa, Australia) 4) Tennis. Around 1 Billion Fans. (Europe, Americas, Asia) 5) Volleyball Around 900 Million Fans. (Asia, Erope, Americas, Australia) 6) Table Tennis Around 900 Million Fans. (Asia, Europe, Africa, Americas) 7) Baseball Around 500 Million Fans. (U.S,Canada, Japan) Golf Around 400 Million Fans. (U.S, Canada, Europe) 9) Football 390-410 Million Fans. (U.S, Canada mainly) 10) Basketball Not more than 400M Fans. (U.S, Canada mainly)

Dave said | May 16th 2008 @ 11:57pm | Report comment

Photon

Where do Cricket get 3 billion fans. There are only 1 billion in India and many of them dont care for Cricket. Aus has 20 million and they all dont like Cricket, Pakistan 165 million and they all dont follow Cricket, Sri Lanka 20 million and Bangladesh 150 million likewise, SA , Eng and WI have limited support for Cricket. Where else China?? Dont think so.

Paul said | May 17th 2008 @ 12:23am | Report comment

At last, some myopic cricket fans! Photon, I love cricket too, but I also find 3 billion an extremely wild fantasy. Dave and I would both be interested to see some real figures, wouldn’t we Dave? (You love figures right?) Really Photon, I would love it if you were right cos I could stick it to the soccer fans. So go on, prove it, you’ll make my day.

Paul said | May 17th 2008 @ 12:29am | Report comment

Photon ma man,

You lose points big time..

You said: “India has a Billion people, if you’re number one in India you are num,ber one in a country that has roughly a third of the worlds population”

Oops. You are way off.

Population India: 1,132,446,000

Population of the world: 6 706 852 000 (and counting)

That’s 16.88%, like I said, you are way off. I’m always looking to hear some interesting debate, but you have even more homework than Dave to do.

matta said | May 17th 2008 @ 9:49am | Report comment

mmmmm… this debate again….

Cant help but think 2 years ago the title would have been

The rise of Basketball: who has it hurt?

Answer 20 years on - no one

Midfielder said | May 17th 2008 @ 6:09pm | Report comment

Paul & Photon

Can I ask you …………. plead with you ……………. not to turn this thread into another this is why football is over rated and AFL / cricket should be more.

My guess is the guys running the Roar are trying to set up and independent media organisation and I want to support that in Australia because God Knows we need more voices.

Paul ………….. people are turning off this site …………… as constant dribble on the old same issues.

If you want a constant debate about sports perceptions ………… write a article submit it and take from there ………..

This is a thread about sports management pertaining to football codes in Australia.

Dave said | May 17th 2008 @ 8:11pm | Report comment

Dont know a great deal about 1955 however there is little doubt football in Oz had been fractured and diviided largely along ethnic lines for far too long. As stated good intentions but poor decsion making cost football many years in its attempts to become mainstream. There were obviously too many at the top who were looking after self interests. l am not able to comment on the Rugby’s through lack of knowledge but can comment on AFL. IMO once the game was up and running in Victoria it was able to thrive in a virtual vacuum environment with no real competition during winter months. Not sure that the VFL achieved any ground through footballs 1955 split as it was already dominant. VFL administrators had very little to do other than arrange the fixtures as the masses would turn up. There were some examples of foreward planning such as creation of VFL Park in the late 60s. However the VFL mamagement did not really have to earn their positions until the 1980s when through poor management at club level and little action at the top clubs started to go broke, grounds had been allowed to fall into disrepair and crowds were stable or falling. The decision to explore expansion was very important and came about around the time the NSL began. Once Sth Melb were sent to Sydenee the die was cast and VFL would never be the same. Up until then VFL had very little direct independent management as the clubs ruled the roost.
The fact that AFL is now the biggest and most successful of the codes has come about through lack of proactive management of the league up to the 70s and 80s which allowed the game to slip backwards. The crisis resulted in some excellent decision making and proactive foreward thinking.
Football meanwhile had opportunities to advance (NSL, WC 1974) but were too divided at the top. Their salvation also came out of a crisis where football was virtually on its deathbed. The decision making was taken out of its hands and thank goodness for that.
The only threat football poses to the other codes is their perceptions of it. Football will grow and hopefully thrive but in my lifetime will never reach no 1 in any of the states. However if it can become no 2 in all the states and territories that will be a remarkable achievement. The management structures and just as important, personnel in charge, appear good enough to guide the code through this period of growth. What a difference 5 years has made.

Midfielder said | May 17th 2008 @ 9:36pm | Report comment

Dave

I dare say already football is number 2 in SA, Vic, Tas, NSW & prehaps Qld, in WA close. It’s more about closing the gap between first and second.

Also about converting the two groups across to the A-league who are not there, those being football snobs who say European stadards for them to come and watch and second those AFL / NRL / Union followers who like sport and will follow the A-League as their summer sport.

Its a big job, as with little money they have to start up and run both the youth & womens league, get two maybe four A_league standard and al within a small budget compared to the other three codes.

The NRL have reacted to the AFL push with quite a strong rear guard action in WS, and it will be interesting to see. The A-league will have two teams, Wollongong & Far WS, the NRL have three / four teams, the old NSL has 4 teams still in state leagues.

Both the AFL & A-L, will have problems finding quality players to fill squads meaning keeping the best junior we have in football will be important, nay essential, other codes will as they have always done raid football looking for those they can convert. This will be the key IMO for football future.

In this regard the new international U 14 team will be good to keep the best 12 / 13 year old each year.

I have faith in FL & BB, and believe if they can hold everything together and grow even in a small way, the next TV deal will be huge, and then …………… we will start to demand respect ……….. and be very hard to ignore.

Paul said | May 18th 2008 @ 1:11am | Report comment

Please, I was saying that Photon was being ridiculous.

Besides, do you have a problem with free speech?

sheek said | May 18th 2008 @ 8:55am | Report comment

Good opening article. Forgive me for not reading each thread, but there’s too much “my dad’s better than your dad” stuff.

May I offer a variation on the thrust of your argument by saying - quality players make a sport, but inept administrators destroy it.

Your example of Australian tennis is frighteningly real. The there’s rugby league in the mid-90s. What happened to the basketball boom? Not to forget my beloved rugby union. After sitting at the top of the world in 1999, Australian rugby has been sliding downhill ever since.

I don’t know what the ideal parameters are for judging each sport’s popularity & health. Gate attendances, TV ratings, corporate sponsorship, merchandising sales, active players, etc are all important barometers.

Take the cricket argument as an example. I think I read recently that India had overtaken China as the most populous nation in the world. In any case, Cricket, while popular in India doesn’t necessarily translate as a popular game worldwide, because it’s popularity is concentrated.

Similar to the big US sports. But the US has a massive advantage as the most powerful economic, political & military country in the world. It’s culture, including sports, is imposed almost everywhere. Other nations mightn’t takeup American football or baseball, but they’re very aware of it.

Anyway, very thoughtful post, wish I could contribute better.

Midfielder said | May 18th 2008 @ 11:21am | Report comment

Sheek

Very insightful post, loved your comment “quality players make a sport, but inept administrators destroy it.”

I may steal that line in a speech I am giving shortly.

sheek said | May 18th 2008 @ 11:10pm | Report comment

Well, it came about a bit by accident.

I’ve been saying recently that every sport needs quality players to prosper & grow, or words to that effect. Then you said that management, by & large, affect the success of a sport. My subsequent comment evolved out of that.

I looked at rugby union. Australian rugby hit rock bottom in 1973 when it lost to Tonga. It was also virtually broke. The ARU, out of desperation, kick started a national coaching scheme, which bore extraordinary fruit over the next 25 years.

The administrators were competent, with the occasional brilliant one. But this was the amateur era, where the goodwill of generous benefactors, both money & time wise, played its part. By the 90s there was an amazing depth of quality talent.

Several good administrators culminated with John O’Neill, who was the high water mark of administrative brilliance. What happened post 2003, is what happens to so many sport. Hubris set in, over-confidence & complacency. The cumulative hard work of 30 years was unravelled in about 3-4 years!

I’ll give you another saying to consider. Sports administrators are a little like self-made millionaires & their family succession. The first administrator will create the success, the second will expand it, & the third will destroy it. It happened withAustralian rugby. It might be happening with the Packer dynasty.

It happened with Australian tennis, West Indies cricket, Australian rugby league (superleague - partially). In rugby league, a succession of great players over 50 years (since the end of WW2), made the code great, helped along by competent administrators, but the best they had were Ken Arthurson & John Quayle in the late 80s/early 90s.

Then along came another group of administrators who wanted the run the game for their self-interest (Newscorp). The game suffered a massive body blow from which it has slowly but steadily recovered.

So yeah, quality players make a sport, but inept administrators destroy it.

Savvas Tzionis said | May 19th 2008 @ 12:06pm | Report comment

You are despicable.

You continue with this 1955 rubbish.

Guess what ‘mate’, the reason it happended was because us ‘wogs’ came here with our passion for the game whilst your anglo brethren did not give a rats bottom.

What did you expect us wogs to do back in 1955. Assimilate upon arrival and join existing teams?

You have to be joking.

Can’t wait for your next migrant bash.

Because thats the only way this vendetta of yours can be decribed.

Midfielder said | May 19th 2008 @ 12:42pm | Report comment

Savvas Tzionis

Where have you been ………… whats this “wog” tag you label me with.

What is the Anglo brethren stuff, football has been in Australia from about 1870 or earlier, it was not a game brought by post war “wogs”., they palyed and that was great they enriched and improved the standard. That those running the game in 1955 were at best poor.

But in 1955 an event did happen ……………. yes it did …………… what event ………….. and as I said not the intention of the planners but a number of the followers of some teams split aliong ethnic race. That was a very poor management decision and that is the context of the thread.

Also I ask you to name me one country that their top league is composed of by some teams based on race. In Europe any league South Amercia.

In fact the joy of football is that it is played by so many and in so many parts of the world.

I cannot see how I can state in 1955 this management decision was made ……………… this was the result ……….. Sorry how else do you explain it.

So when my son says Dad how come Australia was kicked out of FIFA for about 12 years, Dad why did the media only recently start talking about football.

Lazza said | May 19th 2008 @ 12:46pm | Report comment

Why isn’t the supposed 2nd biggest sport in the World part of the Olympics? You don’t have to be a big spectator sport to be included. You just need enough interested nations to win a vote on the IOC committee.

None of our traditional sports are part of the Olympics? I wish we would have a little more realism when it comes to our supposed ‘sporting prowess’. Lack of competition is the more probable answer. After all, most people would have included tennis a few years ago as a sport that we were ‘World Beaters’ at. What happened? Those pesky Europeans and Sth Americans started playing the game seriously and it has just become too competitive for us to dominate like we used to.

Midfielder said | May 19th 2008 @ 3:54pm | Report comment

is tennis the second biggest sport, will take your word for it.

You are right the more something is played the harder it is to win ……… and as more nations play tennis the harder it will be.

However my point on tennis is that at one point in time, was the water cooler sport, in that like cricket is today people would say that player has a good back hand or is a net player and so on.

In my stett there was a tennis court, and there were heaps of back yard courts everyuwhere. Today just from what I see there are less courts in Sydney than 30 years ago.

Tennis has poorly looked after in juniors and local courts, where today …………….. I have no figures but I don’t know anyone who plays, never mind at a decent level. This is hurting tennis a lot, …………… however the extra have added greatly to TA problems. Thus with an expanding world game the not looking after juniors is worst.

Lazza said | May 19th 2008 @ 4:20pm | Report comment

Midfielder, my posts were making the point that just because Cricket has India it does not make it the 2nd biggest team sport in the World, far from it. Those 190 nations that aren’t competitve at Cricket are also NOT interested in Cricket. None of them would have a clue who Shane Warne is? If they were interested they would be able to beat Zimbabwe and Cricket would win an IOC vote and get included in the Olympics.

This is not having a go at other sports it’s as I said, just bringing a bit of realism into the debate.

I think we are probably both right about Tennis, lack of junior development and a vastly more competitive international arena.

Midfielder said | May 19th 2008 @ 5:21pm | Report comment

Sorry no idea your last post was about cricket.

I agree all your points on cricket, especially on a world stage and maybe you were reacting to something that Photon was saying about cricket.

But this is way off topic, I guess I am talking about sports management decisions and how they affect those that play the game. Sheek said in a line that I plan to steal for myself that “quality players make a sport, but inept administrators destroy it.”

When I look at the NRL, they have to live with the decision of the management at the end of the SL war, which effectly has league in both Aust & Eng owened by a US media company. Thus future decisions are difficult to make as News have to agree.

Football has to live with its past, Union also for years of ignoring its park teams now needs quality players and they are simply not there.

So poor management in a sport can do damage to a sport, good management do help a sport.

NUFCMVFC said | May 19th 2008 @ 6:28pm | Report comment

Hard to say who it has hurt per se, seems we are seeing a weird re-shaping of the sporting landscape.

I would say the weekly competition during the summer and braoder appeal than the A League would have hurt Cricket, but for the IPL in some respects (just have to stop a culture of unviably ridiculous wages), with its capacity ofr high wages, may actually help save cricket, but we’ll probably see a change in the calendar, hard to tell exactly, we’ll probably still see Tests but the 50 over one dayers seem a bit under threat and that may be replaced largely by the bigger spectacle of country (Australia vs India etc) Twenty20 type. We may actually see a situation where it can become somewhat of a culture where people attend Test Cricket for a few hours and leave to watch the A League for a couple of hours or at night after it has become dark and they are still in the city and a general consensus can perhaps be reached between Football and Cricket to hold A LEague and Twenty20 in different days perhaps?

This is in their interest because as well as not only bigger crowds for both there will be higher TV ratings for both which means they can both argue for a larger piece of the TV revenue pie. With the IPL becoming bigger, the irony is that this coincides with the AFL and Rugby seasons, though fortunately for them it is on at awkward hours of the night, nonetheless a culture will be emerging where things are no longer AFL/NRL in the winter and Cricket in the Summer type thing, and with the digital rollout with multi-channeling and parallel view type cpacacities the rules of TV will change. Football and Cricket benefit from this as they generally have the lower operating costs (Crickets costs will become more largely paid by Indians) and so they aren’t in a situation where they NEED to get a certain amount in order to break even, unlike AFL which have very large opertaing costs (relatively speaking) and higher attendances for clubs to look respectable.

Don’t forget the ACL as well, no direct clash with AFL/NRL due to it being midweek, kids play football in winter, Australia (A League) is likely to have 4 reps, same with K League, Chinese Super League and J League, so more games among important trading partners in high quality stadiums against “well packaged” teams, this comp will be taken more seriously with furher refining by AFC and actual prize money, all with big popn’s meaning no matter what there will be big TV audiences for matches, even if the Australian audience isn’t as big as that for some NRL/AFL or Cricket games or whatever, the total audience when you include the international dimensions will be very significant, in some respects the numbers will be in a different stratosphere to that of AFL and NRL. John O’Neill recognises this which is why ARU is trying to woo Asia in some respects, but they can’t go as far as Football can

This is not including the Socceroos, who will from this point on always play on a semi regular basis, often during our winter, whether it is high drawing WCQ’s, or Asian Cup Qualifiers. The good balance between high tier and medium tier countires we paly against, means we can move certain games for sellouts in the big cities, but there is also scope to move it to the more regional centres, like what will happen with Gold Coast. The overall TV viewing audience will be eye watering to NRL and AFL, even now, I am wondering how many people watched Australia vs China? Football will always be of value to sponsors, in some respects there is no real “off season” unlike AFL and NRL

ARU is in a sense kind of protected due to its international dimension, but at the same time it has let things slip at junior level and this will hurt it in terms of the Wallabies quality, but the IRB will not let Australia slip and will subsidise them if required. Generally ARU and Football have had a half respectable relationship, which will allow for co-operation

Overall I would have to say that Football will actually hurt the AFL the most, NRL, due to sharing similar shaped facilities, is in a position where it can change tac and cosy up to football for mutal benefit, Cricket and Football can develop a consensus and memorandum of understanding, but the TV broadcasting and sponsorship value, and the lower crowd and financial capital requirements (allowing for viable presence in regional areas) will weaken the hand of the AFL’s position the most, AFL has high operating costs to not only cater for, but to grow on, but the AFL is the least capable of nimbly adapting to the changing dynamics of TV and the Sporting culture of Australia, it has the least revenue streams to be able to tap into and TV broadcasters IMO will be in a position where they can pick and choose a bit better around 2012.

Football fortunes are no longer pegged to just what happens within Australia, at the same time, they have to ensure they are structured in such a way that while they can reap the benefits they can’t be damaged if there are any problems with the Asian economies and are insulated, keep things as light and nimble as possible and don’t become too much of a behemoth like the AFL, don’t raise salary cap too high and just ensure the development pathway is sound and secure to allwo for better retention of talented players/athletes

Redb said | May 19th 2008 @ 6:51pm | Report comment

NUFCMVFC,

And wonder AFL folk msut speak up with posts like this.

Yes the AFL is doomed you say.

IPL will eat into AFL support - how do you justify that remark alone? Its just wishful thinking.

You forget that AFL fans are pretty well rusted into their clubs. Club memberships which support not only gate receipts, but also sponsorship and TV following for those who cannot attend. There is powerful emotion behind club support that compels many AFL fans to watch their team you don’t just switch it off, certainly not in 4-5 years

For the AFL to lose market share in its traditional home you would need to provide a better product to watch. Now i’m not saying that AFL is the superior sport product in this country, but we AFL fans judge all others in comparison. A diet of fast flowing and high scoring, no offside, aerial nature of the game ,etc, means other sports are too slow, have too many stoppages, are too one dimensial, go backwards, low scoring,etc.

Many AFL fans have taken an interest in Melb Victory, very few have totally discarded their AFL club in the process.

I know many soccer fans think the world game’s audience of itself makes it a better game to watch, but I can tell you the most keenly anticipated match in Melbourne is Round 17 Geelong v Hawthorn July 25. Melb Victory’s next ACL game or the one against Juventus is novelty interest at best to the majority.

Just some opinions to counter the wishful thinking.

Midfielder said | May 19th 2008 @ 7:53pm | Report comment

I don’t think NUFCMVFC was saying AFL and doomsday and failure, more we are in a changing sporting environment ……… I also believe IPL ……….. will change things especially in cricket …………. I also feel the A-League will bring a different sports product with the ACL matches being mid week, thus not taking on either the AFL or NRL and sets up nicely in the future a FA cup mid week type comp between A-Leagues teams and State league teams (the FA style is a while off but my guess less than 10 years).

I also see the point he makes about product variation, the AFL has a team comp, final series, State of Origin, and test match with changed rules for Ireland. Other codes have more products, football most of all, Women’s League, Olympics men’s & women’s, International matches, WCQ M & W, WC itself for M & W, ACQ M & W, AC M & W, A-League, ACL, International friendly matches. In this sense football has a lot of bits in its armoury, and in most cases in no direct contest with either the AFL or NRL so it can increase its revenue stream. All of the above comes down to management tho, can FL & BB hold it all together over the next five or so years.

The AFL is in such a powerful position in Melbourne ……….. no body will ever come close to the support it has. However the A-League is also being shown and rating as I understand it rating reasonably well in Singapore, Malaysia & Indonesia, thus adding additional future revenue streams. The key reason given for the A-l rating in these countries is that it is live and in their Prime Time viewing whereas European leagues are all on the same as here in the early morning.

Thus the variety of product / plus exporting to other countries (Socceroos rate very high in NZ & PNG Why don’t know) .

Whether this affects the AFL is questionable, as given the two codes in most markets and nights played, are not in a head to head then both will be paid for their viewers.

NUFCMVFC your point on Union is interesting and one I had not given credit to before. Would the international union board let or could they afford for Australia to fall over. Again fall over is emotive language and perhaps to strong, but it is a very interesting question.

But I do agree with you strongly with we are in a changing sports environment, including future broadcasting i.e. internet by phone company or FTA, good management is needed.

NUFCMVFC said | May 20th 2008 @ 9:27am | Report comment

RedB

Midfielder is generally correct, it is not “having a go” as such, many fans attend both which is all good and fine. Before the IPL I would have said Cricket is hurt the most, with Rugby Union second, but it is generally a comment geared around the rise or rather proper management (mostly) of football coinciding with a shift in the dynamics and nature of the Australian Sporting environment, with a change in how broadcast value is determined.

AFL has less tactical options than the other codes, partly because of its success, ie so much money has flowed in that player salaries etc have risen and there is a higher average crowd and broadcast ratings required to be deemed respectable in other Sports.

Can’t see AFL “dying” ever or really being surpassed within Victoria itself (in total terms), however its ability to be able to really expand successfully into the Northern States and really assert its presence is open to question because of the huge costs and cultural challenges that would be involved, they would need not only to repeat theri massive TV deal, but expand on it considerably, idespite the $1 Billion talk s that really going to be achievable in 2012? Hard to tell because TV will be very different and the dynamics and viewing patterns that will determine how value is calculate is unknown, and with all the expansion going on there won’t really be any shortage of TV Sporting content to choose from, meaning broadcasters market. Timeslots etc aren’t the issue, there isn’t really that much competition (just tail ends of Football and AFL seasons), the question is of total broadcasting revenue that each Sport is able to acquire

In another respect, Rugby Union has been hurt, but by football or by itself? They have a real challenge in the grassroots aspect now

Midfielder said | May 20th 2008 @ 11:57pm | Report comment

Well after today FL management skills when up a tad higher

Prime Minister on ABC news

Standing with Frank Lowy and Harry Kewell, prime minister Kevin Rudd said

” We intend to take this code of football to the next level in mainstream Australia ” Other codes will have to take a back seat as we bid for the world cup ” end of quote Hope I got it right . One hell of a statement

In a article the PM then said all sports were to be treated fairly

Rudd denies playing favourites with soccer cup bid

http://www. abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/05/20/2250661.htm?section=sport

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd says the Government will give all football codes in Australia the same support.

Mr Rudd met members of the Socceroos and Matildas squads in Sydney today to confirm his support for an Australian bid for the 2018 World Cup.

He will also meet a delegation of executives from football’s world governing body in Sydney next week.

But Mr Rudd says he is not favouring one code over the others.

“We’ve got a huge challenge ahead which is to get behind soccer for the 2018 World Cup,” he said.

“We know that there are particular development needs that are associated with this game, but when it comes to the other football codes let me tell you we have other things planned as well.”

Considerable investment is needed to bring Australia’s facilities up to the standard required to host a World Cup.

But Mr Rudd says he will do whatever he can to help Football Federation of Australia Chairman Frank Lowy secure the tournament for Australia.

“This will be a marathon of all marathons, it is going to be tough as hell,” he said.

“But our approach, together with Frank’s, is you’ve got to be in it to win it, and if we want the best for this game for the future then bringing the World Cup to Australia’s the way to go.”

Midfielder said | May 20th 2008 @ 11:59pm | Report comment

FL and management skills see below, never before would I have ever had a dream about this.

Then on ABC online article it said:-

True Tah said | May 21st 2008 @ 10:56pm | Report comment

I don’t see any reason why the IRB should step in to save Australian rugby (and saying that as an Australian rugby fan!) - there are far more countries out there much more deserving and where rugby is actually growing (Georgia, Madagascar, Kenya, Moldova, India). The well-documented problems in Aussie rugby are not due to soccer, AFL or league, the problems can be attributed to the amateur management we have running our game, particularly here in NSW!

I think Michael C will agree with me, in that neither the NRL or AFL should give up their games for the Soccer World Cup (and neither should the ARU if we have a proper season running by 2018 or are still existent), if Australia will get it (I dont think we will though). The AFL is the only professional comp in the World for Australian Football, why should they give it all up for a rival code? From memory the Yanks didn’t give up their native games back in 1994.

Midfielder said | May 22nd 2008 @ 12:07am | Report comment

True Tah

I believe we are kinda like soul brothers………… I blame most if not all / nay most of the old soccer problems on past management practices and the newly found success on good management.

Would be interesting to see your ideas on miss management in rugby. IMO I have often said it is at park rugby level and the clash between private schools and local park clubs is the key ( experienced 8 years of this with my son at my local club). My reasoning solve the issue giving park rugby weekends rights over private school rugby also solves the expanision of rugby in Australia can take place without prefence to already existing often broken clubs and broken management systems.

Paul said | May 23rd 2008 @ 3:54pm | Report comment

I have said it before and I will say it again.

It would be wrong of anyone to demand that the other 3 football codes suspend their seasons for a world cup to be held. This leaves a potential 2018 world soccer cup in Australia two options:

1) Build enough stadiums to not clash with the other 3 codes.

2) Play the world cup during the Australian soccer season.

As to why Kevin Rudd should favour soccer over the other codes, this is not very egalitarian, not giving all a “fair go” and therefore un-Australian. He has some serious thinking to do about his role as Prime Minister. He was elected to serve the Australian people. not to dictate to us.

Lazza said | May 23rd 2008 @ 4:53pm | Report comment

Paul, it was Howard and the Liberals that starting favouring soccer. In 2002 they were wondering why the World’s biggest sporting event was hapenning in our backyard and we weren’t part of it?

They commisioned the Crawford report and the rest is history. It’s the same reason governments pour so much money into the AIS. None of our traditional sports are part of the Olympics but we want to make a splash on the World stage.

It’s only really thru sport that small nations like ours get any attention around the world, that’s why governments will always support the really BIG sports and sporting events.

Midfielder said | May 24th 2008 @ 12:33pm | Report comment

Paul

Small question of law. If AFL built and owned the stadiums then your point is right. But taxpayers money built most of the stadiums and the gov can hire out grounds to who ever they like.

The other codes can still play, but not in the stadiums they are use to. Alternatively the AFL could buy the MCG, Homebush Bay and so on. Then your are correct in saying why move, but until then accept that if the WC comes to Australia then gov will hire out stadiums to football. Its called the law.

In large letters Australian ” LAW”

By Midfielder
May 16th 2008 @ 12:16am

The rise of football: who has it hurt?

Related articles

Recently popular

Free Email updates:

(84)

By Midfielder May 16th 2008 @ 12:16am

The rise of football: who has it hurt?

Related articles

Recently popular

Free Email updates:

(84)

By Midfielder
May 16th 2008 @ 12:16am