The football war will be fought with smaller wallets
So we have all cancelled the early retirement plans and started stockpiling baked beans. The global credit crunch has had a world wide effect, but what impact will it have on the Australian sporting landscape? And if there is a football war going on, what will it do to the war chests?
Wearing a different hat than that of a humble Roar columnist, I spoke to the NBA’s commissioner David Stern last week about the financial robustness of the competition, given that plenty of football fans in Europe are nervously watching the news as their chairmen deal with eye-watering debts as assets often secured by the football club plummet in value.
Stern was confident that the system of debt limitation and salary caps would help limit the exposure of the franchises to the problems of the wider business world.
He is a strong advocate of strong central regulation, which was interesting given that he hails from a country that prides itself on being the home of market liberalism (or at least, was until the word ‘bailout’ was on everyone’s lips).
His jargon would have almost had him in front of the House Committee on Un-American Activities during the McCarthy era.
Stern argued the cap prevented the owners from “spending to oblivion” and it was clear he had little time for the business models of the Abramovich’s of this world.
However, it was equally illuminating given that it seems only yesterday people were claiming the need for the abolition of such caps in Australia.
We were told, “there is no limit on what a CEO can earn.”
We are now finding out the precise problem with such a situation.
It is interesting to note that the sports facing the biggest problems currently are ones who weren’t policed by a salary cap.
There is even talk of one being brought into European football. However, I’d be quick to dismiss that as hollow rhetoric.
Stern admitted that season ticket renewals are slower this year in the NBA, but he believed that this coupled with an increase in new season ticket purchases as well as opportunity for an increase in general sales.
Still, the experienced commissioner did agree that sporting tickets fell into the category of “disposable income” and when this gets tight, the competition for that income increases.
In Australia, with greater scarcity of the punter’s dollars, our football codes have the tougher challenge of making the spending decision of the fan tip in their favour.
First of all, let’s dispel the myth that the economic downturn is bad for everybody.
That is simply not the case.
Already seeing an upturn in fortunes are Domino’s pizza (nothing makes you feel better about a plummeting house price than an extra large Hawaiian), Tie Rack (a new tie might make the boss think twice about firing you, despite you spending the last eighteen months on Facebook) and, interestingly, movie cinemas, as people seek escapism and simple pleasures.
This last one was especially salient for sporting administrators as the line trotted out is often that lean economic times automatically equate to a drop in attendances.
I’m not so sure this should be the case.
Surely if the credit crunch means it is more likely someone will fork out their hard earned to watch the latest offering from Adam Sandler over 93 minutes, then they might also want to take the opportunity to also watch their team strut their stuff.
Anyone who has spent any time listening to talk back radio will no doubt have heard the tales of woe of the cost of a family man taking his kids to the footy.
I’ve never heard the same complaints about the cost of getting them in to see Wall E on the big screen.
But maybe that has something to do with our mindset: we feel like we can complain to our local footy team but not to Hoyts.
Despite the general admission to most club games being comparable to a full priced ticket at the movies, it does seem that people need to be enticed more to attend the footy than they do to roll up to the multiplex.
It is often argued that ticket prices shouldn’t be dropped because it then appears that you are cheapening the product.
However, in the English Premier League, newly promoted West Bromwich Albion actually cut the price of season tickets to a three year low at the same time as going up, despite having a greater wage bill to sustain.
It was all about locking supporters and guaranteeing income rather than allowing their fate to be dictated by whims of form during the season.
But if we are not watching games at the ground, we seem to be doing so at home.
The crunch is likely to have a big impact on the next wave of television deals that football codes have been eying off since the ink dried on their last one.
Sporting CEOs have resembled Enron executives as they seemingly pluck an enormous figure out of the sky and claim this is their new target for the next deal.
It was an easy job because everywhere was awash with cash, but now that this isn’t the case, it is likely the respective bean counters are starting to revise their figures as the cash to support those deals are drying up over night.
And if that happens, there may be a few questions to consider.
How might the AFL fund their raid into Western Sydney without the next bonanza of TV cash?
What effect will any drop in funding have on the NRL grants system?
And with the Foxtel deal keeping most A-League clubs afloat, what happens if the big increase that has been banked on at the end of the current deal simply doesn’t arrive?
I had coffee recently with an A-League insider who claimed their next television deal would surpass the NRL’s. It was simply a matter of the clubs surviving until then.
That survival suddenly might not be so simple.
What of John O’Neil’s grand plan to see private benefactors from the big end of town pouring cash into rugby franchises?
As Spiro has pointed out in a previous article, they might have a few other things on their mind at present.
The collapse of TV money has had disastrous effects on sports in the past in both the UK and Germany. And while it may seem a little dramatic to predict the downfall of a channel in Australia, it might not be so radical to predict some serious belt tightening.
Then again we might have said that before C7 checked out.
My prediction is that fans of one code will have plenty of optimism about their chosen sport but dire predictions about the health of others,
This off-season could have more drama than most.
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...
(198)
oikee said | October 14th 2008 @ 8:08am | Report comment
The soccer t/v deal bigger than the nrl deal, your on some sort of fantasy drug, tell your mate that steve, even if we did not have the down-turn this would never happen, the nrl is a t/v gallioth even aussie rules struggles to beat the nrl at the t/v game. The only t/v deals that might go up would be the nrl, why, because they were underpriced in the 1st place, and they can split up parts of the game to make more from it. Aussie rules were over-priced, they should struggle, and the a-league will also start having to flog a dead horse to get money from the deals, the 1st thing you lose in a down-turn is pay t/v, but the older and retired folk who watch league wont be in that catagory. What they should do is bring back packages, like “A” for league “B” for AFL or “C” for soccer, this would sort out the men from the boys. In the t/v world .
True Tah said | October 14th 2008 @ 8:20am | Report comment
oikee,
when futbol starts talking about getting bigger tv deals than NRL it is not just HAL, it includes the Socceroos as well. Interest in the Socceroos in no small measure helps subsidise the HAL.
By itself, HAL would not get a large deal, it does not rate that well on Pay TV yet, for the last reporting period, the highest ranking HAL game was at 84th in all sports events, that being the final. The Socceroos got the top spot, and the Super 14 final was second, although NRL and AFL did dominate the top 100 overall.
oikee said | October 14th 2008 @ 9:09am | Report comment
I cant dispute figures that you give me TT but i also have said on previous posts that at the moment they (socceroos) are a novelty, this wares thin after awhile and you will get a better idea down the track, its like 20/ 20 cricket, people move on.
The Link said | October 14th 2008 @ 9:52am | Report comment
Steve - nice work on Stern.
If only the Yanks could apply the same common sense shown in running their sports as their financial system and country in general. In the past they may have only been a Karl Rove ’socialised sport’ attack away from changing that, however recent events and even an Obama presidency make this more unlikely.
TT and Oikee, News are on the record as saying that Pay TV rights deals are based on potential subscription growth, not ratings. So the question is more about how Socceroos games and A-League can drive subscriptions rather than ratings at this stage. Ratings must become more important however as saturation increases in the Australian Pay TV market.
The key for the FFA is not the A-League clubs not falling over, but getting the Socceroos on the anti-siphoning list. This way they can charge top dollar for Free to Air rights to subsidise the A-League, along with allowing on selling to Pay TV for the lower ranking Socceroos games. The current list expires at the end of 2010, will this be in time for the negotiations?
Michael C said | October 14th 2008 @ 10:13am | Report comment
Any FFA broadcast deal will porbably see HAL still safely tucked away exclusively on Pay TV and the FTA vs Pay main bidding would be for the Socceroos component in the hope of a FIFA WC campaign. But, if Socceroos are placed on anti siphoning list, then that limits the bidding by removing the pay tv bid. If it’s all packaged, then you need a FTA/Pay consortium and they’ll split their value propositions accordingly, or the FTA network would most likely on sell as much as possible of the HAL.
Along the way……..a direct feed of Socceroos in Tashkent at 2 in the morning…………..what value do you place on that? What really is the value proposition for the Socceroos? Given the Wallabies for example can sell out Suncorp at the drop of a hat and not get on tv in Melb until midnight.
and re the Pay TV value proposition of increasing subscriptions - - there’s limited value for domestic soccer as most soccer fans will be signed up already to see their EPL and the like - - the saturation global coverage of soccer must diminish the new subscriptions potential for the HAL.
Millster said | October 14th 2008 @ 10:15am | Report comment
Very interesting article Steve. I thought you’d get oikee fired up about the TV deal comparison to the Rugby League. Of course, you are spot on. Football’s deal will end up sitting between League and AFL in the next round of negotiations.
Oikee remember that NRL is only a TV goliath in 2 states, and in a limited demographic in those 2 states at that. It is not a national product. Also mber that League’s Free-to-Air offering is on Channel 9 which is in real financial trouble and owned by private equity who want only to cut costs as much as they can. I think League will be ok on Fox but it’s reliance on Channel 9 to get to its lower-class fan base is a very real weakness.
And for those that say its not fair that Socceroos would bolster the football TV deal, I’ve been hearing all month about this important League World Cup coming up too… surely if its so good and credible as people tell me it is, it should add enormous value to the League TV rights value…
And finally to Oikee again, the ‘novelty wears thin’ argument about the Socceroos just doesn’t wash for me. We’re talking about our national team in the biggest sport in the world. Has the novelty worn thin for the national teams of Argentina? England? Brazil? France? Germany? They have all been playing for many many years… Sinilarly has the ‘novelty worn thin’ about our 100+ year old national cricket team, or the Wallabies (despite both cricket and Union being much smaller sports than football)? No. Quite the contrary, the Socceroos are just starting to achieve now in a way they never have before. The next 20 years will see them take the Australian public on a journey that is absolutely scintillating… with the next step of that journey tomorrow night at Suncorp.
Millster said | October 14th 2008 @ 10:32am | Report comment
MC - valid points. One thing I must remind you of, of course, is that FTA is already asking Fox for access to one or two HAL matches to play each week. So while I agree that HAL will primarily stay on the Pay platform, don’t underestimate the appetite to have some (though not comprehensive) HAL content on pleb TV.
Interesting point about both time zones and subscriptions which I agree both warrant some thought. On time zones, to my mind there are home Socceroos and big HAL matches that are obvious FTA sweet-spot. Wee-hours games will be a matter of judgement for the networks. I suspect the answer will be live on Fox with extended highlights or a full replay the next morning on FTA. Though depending on a range of factors, FTA may yet decide that at 3am the Socceroos still rate better than info-mercials and run them live. Question is what the deal will do in relation to ACL? Will it be an extension of the predominantly Pay TV HAL deal or will it be attractive to FTA (remember we’re talking a Wednesday night, either prime time or up to 6 hours later depending on location)
oikee said | October 14th 2008 @ 11:01am | Report comment
That journey is about to begin, i thought that journey has now been going for 20 years, seems to be a long journey, look to be honest millster i am with M.C and if you take into account the saturation as i have previously said myself, i dont see a global market either for socceroos verse qatar, they only have 250 thousand over there, i dont watch france playing romania, whats your lifeline, socceroos playing china, china benifits, the world cup will get a world following for football of course, but if your team is not in, the interest diminishes, a small world cup is probably the future, not this long dragged out qualifying and games played out between countries who in my opinion devalue the game, if a tiny nation can knock off a world power then its sad times. What does it prove.? I also dont see the sense of a team drawing and then riots.
And finally you hit the nail on the head millster, yes league is mainly only 2 states, theres plenty of room for growth. Not only here but also other countries who are interested in league, who else besides ozzies are interested in the socceroos.?
And your 1st statement millster does not make sense, the rules and league deal are very much on par, one was over-sold the other under-sold, so where do you sit, your either going to say that soccer deals are going to be number 1 or number 3. not this in-between because there is no in-between. Make a call and then i can shoot you down if your wrong. I will be around in 5 years time so i am patient.
oikee said | October 14th 2008 @ 11:13am | Report comment
And your point about channel 9, what are you saying that if league was lost to 9 then the game is lost, are you also on some sort of fantasy drug, the other channels would love to pick up the rights, probably do a better job at selling the game anyhow, league is already looking at better free to air deals, if nobody picked it up then pay t/v would go through the roof.
Millster said | October 14th 2008 @ 11:53am | Report comment
Oikee - badminton is only played in a few countries in Asia. Does that mean there is enormous room for growth of that game in Australia? Get my point? Just because a game isn’t somewhere doesn’t make that place an automatic growth opportunity. Or else you’d have a strange argument going that would say that the smaller and more isolated a sport is then the more fantastic its opportunities are. Doesn’t work. Small sports are small sports for a reason, especially if they have been around for decades or even a century or more.
Also your analysis jumps (as it usually does) between club and national level. Only Aussies are interested in Socceroos is like saying only Aussies are interested in Kangaroos. But if you talk about other countries interested in League (the game in general, not just one country) you have to compare it to the contries interested in Football (again the game in general, not just the Australian game).
I can’t even start picking apart your first para - it is so full of holes. First, thanks for the stereotypes about draws and riots, cheap shots always much appreciated. On global market remember no SINGLE game (except those mega-ginals such as World Cup and UEFA) get global coverage. The globalisation is in each nation supporting its clubs and national teams in the world, plus some spill-over into the continent. So with Socceroos and Qatar, yes you’ll have mainly Aussies and Qataris watching, plus some interested viewers from the other nations in our group, plus then some general global football fans watching out of interest. Same as in your League World Cup. Not everyone will watch every game, each nation will watch their own, with some but not a lot of spillover. The globalisation comes from adding all those individual bits of interest together.
You also have to remember in terms of that general interest that in Australia it is ABNORMALLY low by world standards. As one example, in 2006, I watched the famous Socceroo win over Uruguay from a cafe in Montparnasse, in Paris. Yes, thats right, French people had on a game between 2 completely unrelated nations and yet were following intently and getting into it. It even occurs in non-football nations. I spent a few hours in the ESPN bar in Vegas when I was last there and the big screens were showing key World cup Qualifiers - not only USA but also Mexico and Central and South American countries. Oh, and by the way I did watch France vs Romania streamed on the web.
And finally on World Cup structure and qualifying, how else do you cater for a game played and followed by over 150 countries? How do you ensure some excitement and a ’slice of the pie’, even for those that don’t make the finals? And how do you ensure that the one-off freak win does not decide the fate of an entire group if you don’t have proper qualification series played over a number of games? So quite the opposite to you, I see it as the lifeblood of the sport and as the true greatness of it. Also look at the ultimate winners of all World Cups since the start. You can’t argue that the strongest teams don’t usually rise to the top. Sure like in all tournaments there is a freak result here and there but once you get to the top 4 or so you’re usually talking football royalty in terms of the nations involved.
Michael C said | October 14th 2008 @ 11:59am | Report comment
oikee, millster -
as Steve indicated “My prediction is that fans of one code will have plenty of optimism about their chosen sport but dire predictions about the health of others,”
funny that most people seem to bemoan the existing tv coverage and covet some improved coverage from an other channel…………we AFL folk have seen the offerings of each and every primary commercial network & fox……………reality, they’ve all got limitations and compromises and the deal is invariably only as good as the contractual nouse of the sporting administration.
Re the HAL - - so, we’ve what? half way into the 7 years $120 mill deal……when does negotiation in earnest begin?
Would it be about 2 years out - so, in about 18 months time.
AFL also has 3 years to run, so negotiations will be coming up around then - - it’ll be interesting times.
The rest of this HAL season and next year will be super important - - the whole premise of increasing crowds and interest - that has been flown from city hall so proudly over the first 3 seasons - - may be challenged, as appears the case presently 1/3rd through season 4. The HAL may just rely too unhealthily upon the coat tails of the Socceroos - should they qualify - but it might be just the thing required to get through the ‘consolidation’ tough times - - so - from a code wars perspective, the champagne is on ice still pending a few more Asian qualifiers??
The ACL is still interesting, as, for now, in the main, it’s unreliable with only 2 teams qualifying - and no real idea of whom, where and when and into which market you’ll be selling. The value proposition is very vague. And the capacity to generate extra market interest is limited given that the ACL outside of Adelaide at present, for example, has been completely obscured by AFL and NRL seasons and their culmination…..and those 2 codes very effectively overlap each other to absolutely dominate the states.
It’ll be very interesting to see how the parts or the whole are valued, and where the gamblers are willing to roll the dice.
oikee said | October 14th 2008 @ 12:00pm | Report comment
oikee said | October 14th 2008 @ 12:13pm | Report comment
That
was for you millster, you seem like me about futbol as i was to league, not knocking the world game its just funny how easy a nation can get into the world cup , to me it seems like theres really no competition, anyone can play the game and this is why i lose interest, the other sports you have to earn the right to make it, thats where i am coming from millster just so you know.
Like i said before these other codes are no threat to your game, its already got world following, i wont change that nor will M.C, but we can still debate the issues involving the smaller codes. Cheers, and your points are valid.
True Tah said | October 14th 2008 @ 12:19pm | Report comment
Millster,
I can’t argue with your last paragraph. For all the hoopla about the little guys getting up (Im thinking 2002 WC here - Senegal beating France, Korea beating Italy albeit assisted by questionable umpiring), the reality is the futbol royalty seem to always be present at the business end.
In the history of the futbol World Cup stretching back to 1930, there have been 7 winners - Uruguay, Brazil, Argentina, Italy, Germany, France and the UK, now Uruguay only has a 4 million population and is flatout even qualifying for the event these days, despite their “divine right”, so I doubt they will ever get close again. Apart from these guys, I think the Dutch, Mexicans and the Portuguese are the only nations which have really pressured the top order, and the Spanish until this year, had an appalling record at international competitions, when you consider the strength of their domestic league.
So far, since 1987, union has had NZ, Australia, England and South Africa win world cups, France has featured strongly throughout, and Argentina really shook up the order last year, although I feel it may have been a one off event for them. Hopefully in my lifetime, we will see the likes of Georgia, Fiji, Italy, Wales and other smaller countries push the big guys, and I reckon Georgia will win a world cup before Wales, Scotland or Ireland.
Millster said | October 14th 2008 @ 12:44pm | Report comment
To Oikee - You simply dont have to “earn the right” to make it in Union or League or Cricket World Cups (lets leave AFL’s alone
) In fact if you look at the minor teams in the finals of those three World Cups its like a sheltered workshop not an elite competition. I get the feeling of “lets let in anyone who might even be able to name the sport let alone play it”. I just checked the RLWC playing and saw that 6 of the 10 nations competing are from the region people called Oceania (essentially Aust, NZ and pacific islands)… some kind of a lop-sided world that is… And its not only League. Namibian Rugby Union team anyone? Netherlands or Canadian Cricket Teams? I mean seriously… where is even the attempt to qualify from the majority of the significant nations in the world?
In contrast, football has a sophisticated system that is spread between the 5 continental groups of the world which gives all entrants a path to the finals, but which means that the 32 finalists that make it to the World Cup are tried and tested.
True Tah - sometimes upset results are valid too you have to remember. In 2002, Turkey and Korea played some wonderful football. France was also not on song at all and while at the time were top 10 in ranking, they were not top 10 on form. Remember they were not only beaten by Senegal but also by Denmark, a respectable but not awesome country. And again going back to what I said to oikee in the last para, Senegal, Korea and Turkey were there after a proper qualification process. They earned their spot in the finals. They were not just there as a “grab bag” of nations like happens in the other so-called World Cups.
Michael C said | October 14th 2008 @ 12:53pm | Report comment
Millster -
the AFL does NOT have a ‘world cup’………………
……..because, if we did, then Italy and Greece for example would most certainly be there - - however, in the international cup as a development tournament for other nations - they do not participate.
rightly or wrongly.
………….otherwise, I might’ve scored a tournament representing Denmark……………………..ah gosh darn it all!!!!!!
True Tah said | October 14th 2008 @ 1:13pm | Report comment
Millster,
Im going to start by saying that the rugby world cup is nowhere near the size and importance of the futbol world cup which is hardly surprising, but you may be surprised to hear that in 2011, 8 nations will enter qualifying stages for the World Cup, in fact some nations have already entered into qualifying. I don’t know how many nations, I doubt it would be anywhere near as big as the futbol world cup.
It is far from a “grab bag of nations”, it is actually serious stuff. Like when Portugal had to travel to Uruguay to qualify for the 2007 world cup, Uruguay did everything it could to upset the Portuguese, including restricting their access to proper training facilities. As a consequence they got to play against the All Blacks and show the world that Portugal plays sports apart from futbol.
Just to illustrate the qualifying nature for the Cup, the Makis of Madagascar recently played against Uganda and Botswana to qualify.
For the record, the game between Madagascar and Botswana drew a crowd of 30,000…Ive checked the FIFA website for the Barrea (Malagasy futbol team) drew crowds of about 9,000 and 16,000 for world cup qualifying games against the Comoros and Mozambique respectively at the same ground. Unfortunately Uganda beat the Makis, so they won’t be going any further.
And also, I note the Phillippines withdrew their futbol team from the World Cup qualifying a nation with a population of 70 million, I would have expected that somehow they could afford to take part…however their national rugby team has continued to take part in qualifying for Asia, its probably a minority game there and highly unlikely to make it any further,
True Tah said | October 14th 2008 @ 1:15pm | Report comment
sorry,
I meant to say that of the 20 countries at the 2011 world cup, 8 nations will qualify from various regional qualification tournaments in Africa, Asia, Europe, Oceania and the Americas.
Millster said | October 14th 2008 @ 1:31pm | Report comment
True Tah - I’ll admit to a small amount of revision of my views but not total as your only examples to push back were small nations that would be influenced by the cultural reach of South Africa and surrounds in terms of Union adherence.
Although I have educated myself by going to the qualifiers part of the Union World Cup site and have seen that there is indeed a reasonably solid qualification tournament in place across a number of regions.
I’ve also checked the League World Cup site and seen no such evidence, and a really laughable set of nations.
Shall go to Cricket now to verify my view. I expect the story will be better than League but not as good as Union.
True Tah said | October 14th 2008 @ 1:41pm | Report comment
Millster,
there was some qualification for RL, but it didn’t amount to much, it meant the Lebanese didnt qualify.
And I haven’t worked out why the Malagasy are even interested in rugby, but I can assure you it would have bugger all to do with them being close to South Africa…Im going there later this year, maybe Ill find the answer out? As a partial Frenchman, you would know that they once fell under the French empire!
You wont find any argument about cricket from me here, Im not a huge fan of it to be honest.
Pippinu said | October 14th 2008 @ 1:47pm | Report comment
TT/Millster
It’s interesting that for decades we have been talking about “emerging” nations in the world game, and the decreasing gap amongst the very best and the rest, and yet, the more things change the more things stay the same.
The most recent entrant to the very exclusive club of countries that have won the WC was France in 1998 (and prior to that it was Argentina 20 years earlier) - but both had very good WC pedigrees at the time they won it, France having been 3rd on two occasions, and Argentina had been runners-up previously and had contested all WCs bar one.
In 40 years (or 11 WCs), the only time a finalist has appeared in the WC final who hasn’t won it previously (apart from France in 1998) is Holland in 74 & 78.
Turkey deserved to be there in 2002, but unfortunately they were forced to meet Brazil twice, including in the semi-final.
I reckon South Africa presents a great opportunity for someone to come out of left field and appear in the final for the first time, just as the first WC in Asia had South Korea and Turkey in the final 4, something similar is likely to happen in the first WC in Africa, and hopefully this time they will make the final two (needless to say, a few African nations are very well placed to achieve that, and get some return for their excellent record at youth level).
True Tah said | October 14th 2008 @ 1:52pm | Report comment
Pip,
my bet is the Ivory Coast being the flagbearer for Africa.
I would love to say South Africa, but they would really prove me wrong if they got to the final.
Then again it wasn’t so long ago that Zaire (now the DRC) was in the World Cup, where are they now?
Millster said | October 14th 2008 @ 2:02pm | Report comment
Pippinu - interesting comments and I am torn. On the one hand I want the football ‘world order’ to be shuffled. On the other, part of the solidity of my arguments that we have such a strong and elite global competition is that is is not some free-for-all dominated by random results. Deep footballing culture, technical brilliance borne of life-long play, multi-generation deep legends and committed investment in all facets of the sport are what is required to achieve the pinnacle. Hence the entrenched nature of the top 5 or 6 nations.
However I would like a number of nations to do well. Australia and France aside (for I am nationalistically biased in terms of those two) I’d love to see an Asian team do well - Korea or Japan most likely. I’d also like Turkey to have another run as the club level of their game is important. I hope the Dutch give it a real shake as they have been promising on skills and tactics for 15 years and have had some of the leading figures in the game, without coverting that to national glory. Mexico is another country that I’d like to do well, and the US for selfish reasons as it would be a boost for the fan base there.
But as per my protestations to Alan N, my definition of ‘do well’ is make it to the top 8 or so. That in itself is a stunning achievement in a truly top-class global code. More broadly, “emerging nations” should be seen as ones like our own - new nations who are rising to be real contenders to participate in the World Cup. Who are shaking up not so much the top 10 in the world, but the 30 or so places below that. Who are starting to REALLY deserve regular World Cup finals participation and, on a good year, who have the skills, flair and technique to perhaps have a good run if things go their way.
Millster said | October 14th 2008 @ 2:04pm | Report comment
True Tah - in terms of Africa, the dark horse is the northern countries. Without having time to research it, I have a feeling that Tunisia and Morocco in particular have shown fits and starts of promise over the years, and have done pretty well at continental level.
Michael C said | October 14th 2008 @ 2:11pm | Report comment
Millster -
it’s interesting that 100 years of soccer in Australia, and 30+ years of a national league, and having made the FIFA WC finals (group of 16) 34 years ago - - that you keep trying to pass Australia off as ‘NEW’????
Millster said | October 14th 2008 @ 2:20pm | Report comment
MC - I grant you your point. Though it is probably true that in the case of all so-called “emerging countries” the game has in fact been played there for many many years.
In each case, what ‘emerging’ probably means is that there has been some shock to the system which has lifted the game, the administrative competence, the standard of play, the ability to get the potential out of key players, etc.
but I totally agree that the flip-side of this is an acknowledgement that we in Australia wasted, squandered, and ran the game downright ineptly despite migrant enthusiasm and broad grass-roots participation for 50+ years. In that sense we are not so much new as just awakening from a disgraceful comatose state.
chris said | October 14th 2008 @ 2:43pm | Report comment
Oikee, the reason for the qualification process in football in supply and demand. Each country in the world aims to be one of 32 nations in the world cup. The world order has stuck to 6 or 7 teams, although dont forget that there are some great footballing nations who have come close on a number of occassion but never won the world cup. One example, is the Polish team of the late 70’s early 80s. They are regarded as having one of the greates teams of all time, yet the furtherst they ever they ever got was the semis. There a number of other examples as well which I could use as an example
Oikee, if you cannot apprecatie the drama and beauty of qualification then you are pehaps more one-eyed than i first thought.
Pippinu said | October 14th 2008 @ 2:56pm | Report comment
Millster
I certainly agree that top 8 is a stunning achievement for any country outside of the top 6 or so (would certainly be a stunning achievement for Australia). I also understand and appreciate your arguments about the exclusiveness of that particular club emphasising the how difficult it truly is - and it is reassuring that despite the fact that most countries can beat another country on a given day - it doesn’t hold true as far as a month long tournament goes - you really have to be the absolute best of the best (mind you - I hate the concept of penalties to determine the world champion - hate it! Brazil should have been embarassed in 1994).
North African countries are a good bet to produce someone who will make the top 8. Do you remember Algeria in 1982? (they didn’t make it to the next round, but…)
TT
I think Zaire last made the WC in 1970 (?) and I think they copped an almightly 9-0 hiding from someone.
oikee said | October 14th 2008 @ 3:02pm | Report comment
Maybe we should stay asleep millster, this has been a great little country without soccer.
So after all the qualifying and all the play-offs and then to make the top 32 and then sit through all this to get your winner, who according to you will be one of the top 8, I will stick to league with its 3 country poilicy and 12 nations trying to compete , it holds my interest more. One year we might have a country good enough to beat us, at least i can watch the final knowing that the kangaroos will be there maybe. Why would i be interested in the world cup final. (futbol) This gets back to my previous statement, the socceroos hold oz interest if they qualify, once there out then the interest wains. You know that millster , probably better than anyone.
Another point is so league only has 10 teams in the world cup, and like i said good, its over and done with quickly, it does not go on for to long and our team will be there so this holds peoples interest. Have alook at a tri nations tournament for Union, people enjoy a quick close contest, not a drawn out yawnathon. Think boutique, thats the future.
True Tah said | October 14th 2008 @ 3:03pm | Report comment
Pip,
I thought it was 1974.
I dont think they will be qualifying for a few more years yet though.
Haiti also qualified in 1974 as well I think, were they another whipping boy.
The only other whipping boys Ive read was Cuba, in 1938 they lost 8-0, and Saudi Arabia copped a hiding as well in 2002.
Millster said | October 14th 2008 @ 3:16pm | Report comment
In Oikee’s defence it is hard to imagine in size, scale and importance what the football world is if you have grown up and been culturally entrenched only ever in one of the small codes. While I fundamentally disagree with 99% of what he writes, I do recognise that he comes from the mindset of what would be best for League, and tries to translate that across to football.
And to Chris, you’re right. I’d actually say the world order has included about 15 team, but not all of those have tasted the glory of a world cup win. I agree that Poland’s place needs to be recognised, and I also don’t think you can leave out of a ‘world order’ countries like Spain, Portugal, and Holland, and then a second tier who have been ‘there or thereabouts’ or have notable continental prominence (in mind as I write this are Cameroon and Nigeria) and in that way contribute to the power structure of football.
oikee said | October 14th 2008 @ 3:17pm | Report comment
The qualifying is boring chris, so we get to play Iraq ,Qatar, Urbeckastan, these countries dont hold my interest, thats why i like union and league, we play the so-called sports nations also france, when america and russia come on board the stakes are higher, not some little backwater trying to make a name for itself. Its just my own opinion, you may not like it but its the way i look at the world, Qatar does not hold my interest. Futbol fans would be in raptures over this.
Michael C said | October 14th 2008 @ 3:20pm | Report comment
oikee -
I know in Denmark, despite being a founding member of FIFA - their national team struggles to fill a 40K venue (the renovations are actually reducing it’s capacity) - - and they really only get excited about it all should the national team qualify…………..irrespective of grace, beauty and drama - - for so many people - - self interest comes first…………..and fair enough……..because, no matter how much it ‘means’ - - it’s all a bit meaningless when it’s simply other people and it all means so much more when your team/nation is involved.
Funny how this whole ’smaller wallets’ has turned into a World Cup comparison - - however, given the reliance of the RLWC on Pacific minnows - - I’m curious about the funding mix to get them to the tournament — is their travel/accomodation all covered out of the broadcast rights/sponsorship? How well ’stand alone’ is the tournament? Is there a lot of interest out of Eng/France/Wales to ensure that the finances all stack up fine?
chris said | October 14th 2008 @ 3:22pm | Report comment
Oikee, the reason why there are no more than 10 countries in the rugby league world cup is cause nobody else plays it as you know. Even to get 10 nation here was an almighty effort, with playerts trading countries etc etc. What a joke. The rugby league world cup is a laughing stock and you know it. Why is it even called a world cup haha.
We can sit here and debate as much as we want, although at the end of the day there is only 1 genuine world cup, and we know what it is. The only other sport which has a half decent world championship is bastekball. The other, PLLLLLLLEase. It may sound a little harsh, althugh i am only being realistic.
True Tah said | October 14th 2008 @ 3:27pm | Report comment
MC,
a lot of the Islanders guys are not actually from the Islanders, they live in Australia and play in our comps, whether its the NRL, Queensland Cup or the bush comps, so I gather that accommodation and travel would be domestic.
I dont know how its being funded, and I dont know how ticket prices are going.
One thing that pisses me off with the RLWC is the ability of guys to seemingly pick who they want to play for, we had the idiotic situation of guys being named in both the Samoan and Kiwi squads as well.
I take my hat off to the Scottish and Irish Rugby Leagues for their impressive development work in sending immigrants to Australia to one day generate players for their national teams.
If I was the Lebanese Rugby League Id be pissed because they were told for future rugby league world cups they would need to have their own comp - which they duly went out and formed - only to see Ireland and Scotland qualify by fielding Aussies and Englishmen.
True Tah said | October 14th 2008 @ 3:29pm | Report comment
MC,
given that Wales is not in the RLWC, I dont think there would be too much interest coming out of it.
Pippinu said | October 14th 2008 @ 3:32pm | Report comment
TT
you might be right about 1974.
But I do recall that El Salvador copped a 10-1 shellacking at the hands of Hungary in 1982 (which was smack bang in the middle of their civil war).
But it clearly was a bit of an anomaly, they only lost 2-0 to Argentina and 1-0 to Belgium.
Incredibly, Hungary didn’t go through to the next round!
I recall quite clearly that Belgium defeated Argentina in the opening game 1-0 (in those days, the reigning champs played in the opener). Hungary defeated El Salvador 10-1 in their first game.
Argentina came out breathing fire, and guess who they played next? Defeated Hungary 4-0, and then Hungary could only manage a draw with Belgium, and that was the end of them. They haven’t done too well ever since.
chris said | October 14th 2008 @ 3:37pm | Report comment
Michael C, you having a laugh with that comment about Denmark. The national team in denmark is followed religiously. The fortunes of the national team determine the mood of the country. When Denmark play a world cup qualifier the streets are deserted. Im not quite sure where you got your facts about their home games, ever time i see a qualifier in copenhagen involving denmark it seems to be packed to the rafters.
I know you are from a Danish background, although i have myself spent a bit of time there as well along with the fact i have a couple good danish friends. I actually dont think you understand how important the game there is to the people.
Oikee, I am not going to argue with you or try to pursuade you. Although your opinions are very narrow minded. Some of them are so silly that the average person can only look at it think ‘wtf, is this bloke smoking something or what’.
True Tah said | October 14th 2008 @ 3:40pm | Report comment
Pip,
yeah I dont understand why Hungary hasn’t dominated world futbol since Les Murray might have some answers, having said that, for my mind their most famous sporting moment was in water polo against the USSR in 1956, when the star player ko’d a few of the Soviets and there was blood in the water.
In 1994, Romania and Bulgaria weren’t too bad, and in 1998, Croatia came of age, although given the racist nature of their fans, they should be banned from comps…I know they are an insular people, but cmon, I expect a lot better of human beings in the 21st century for chrissake.
Michael C said | October 14th 2008 @ 3:41pm | Report comment
chris -
harsh and a poor recognition of the right to compete.
And that the spirit of the sporting pioneers in many nations in ‘minnow’ countries and ‘minnow’ sports - - perhaps shows a finer sporting ethos than those who simply line up with the masses and pursue the proven riches………..
……….yes, yes, my argument supports the AFL international cup as a worthy competition….based on the dedication and determination of any individual who overcomes hurdles, the odds, lack of funding, lack of support, lack of recognition etc etc - - and in many cases fully self funds and sacrifices without financial reward or the promise of such………..
….in some respects, the FIFA WC represents the ugly side of sport (as has much of the high profile Olympics - such that the IOC has ensured to allow the odd feeble swimmer from nations without an Olympic sized pool to compete - - just to try to hammer home that ‘participation’ is what it’s all about.) - - the reality though is that the bigger the event the more the business of it dominates proceedings. The smaller the event - - perhaps the more the ‘beauty’……and the smaller the event, perhaps the less that the participants are effectively genetic ‘freaks of nature’………….as the top world basketball competition exhibits with super athletic 7 foot plus ‘freaks’…………..
Millster said | October 14th 2008 @ 3:43pm | Report comment
Oikee - if international football interest was only when the Socceroos played, why then the TV deals for the total world cup? Why then Fox Sports in Australia not only carrying live, but strongly promoting the European championships (a tournament in which - obviously - Australia doesnt even play!). Why in the 2002 world cup - again where we didn’t qualify - the interest from Ch 9 in selecting some games to show live in prime-time slots?
You misread the football public Oikee. We are not so parochial - because we have a quality product. Yes I’ll support Australia playing in any old shit contest or little code but I won’t watch any other games because it is a waste of time. But give me a global standard product and I’ll watch it all. In 1994 and 1998 World Cups I watched over 50 of the 72 games of those tournaments. In more recent times (2002 and 2006) I’d guess around 30 of the 72 games, because I was of working age and insomnia was less of an option.
Tri-nations is not comparable because it is a collection of one-off tests, kind of bundled together. It is not a real international tournament in the way the various World Cups are.
In any case talking about interest waining in the most watched single event in the world is a joke. And trust me there is global attention on the World Cup Qualifiers. Just as most Aussie and Qatari eyes will be on Suncorp tomorrow, in countless stadia around our globe and in front of countless TV sets there will equally be people glued to seeing their national teams progress (or not) in the global game.
I can’t believe, in any case, that you’d prefer to watch a Kangaroos team make the final of a small code where its opposition consists of NZ and 4 pacific islands, and then a small handful of European nations in which the game is a tiny fringe. Yes Australia will make the final but really… who cares… its like international basketball and the US Dream team - the only interest that could possibly come out of it would be if the Aussies were beaten. Put another way, all it proves is that we follow something that is pretty meaningless everywhere else. I know its hard for you to see as you love League, but to get an equivalent perspective, think of what it would be like if there was an AFL World Cup. Australia would win… but so what???
Yawn-fest to me is playing a game that is so insignificant that you are a shoe-in to win… not because you have to be particularly good… but simply because you have so little real competition.
oikee said | October 14th 2008 @ 3:45pm | Report comment
Chris your world game is only as big as your own mind, its all in your head but like me and my small narrow mind according
to you and my lack of knowleadge about the world game you think that everyone should be interested. Why because brazil once beat Quabec, in a play-off. Your interest is futbol but other people really dont care, if they travel overseas for a holiday i dont think they would go to turkey to see a futbol game, whats your point. Take it on the chin and get over it, lifes not a round ball you know. Futbol is like religion, it keeps the narrow minded people down and the natives happy. Dont try to preach to the rich is a good saying,
So having said this what i am saying chris is you have a small dick but really are a big one.
oikee said | October 14th 2008 @ 3:47pm | Report comment
Basketball internationals, yeah right chris, i and many others sat up for that one.
Redb said | October 14th 2008 @ 3:47pm | Report comment
Millster,
Despite futbol’s international presence it struggles to sell itself as entertainment to Australians who have grown up with other football codes.
No amount of international muscle flexing will matter a tinker’s dam if the game itself is mostly boring compared to what we Aussies are used to.
We are lucky we have a choice as does the USA and Canada.
Redb
Redb said | October 14th 2008 @ 3:49pm | Report comment
so Millster if that means Australia, NZ , USA and Canada remain on the outside of the ‘world game’ who cares.
Redb
chris said | October 14th 2008 @ 3:51pm | Report comment
Look us football supporters may sometime look as though we are ignorant etc etc. I think that is simply due to the fact that we are used the best and most popular. Therefore when someone mentions the rugby league world cup for example, all you can really do is laugh. I know the above sounds cocky, although put yourself in my shoes. If rugby league had the world cup football does, rugby league supporters would also be laughing at other tournies who claim to be world cups. Thats just the way it is.
Bring on South Africa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sorry for offending some of you…………
True Tah said | October 14th 2008 @ 3:51pm | Report comment
Millster,
I think you are being a bit harsh on Oikee re: his choice of viewing…the only full WC games I watch are those involving the socceroos, although I watched a few games in 2002, Ive really really given international futbol a lot of goes, in 1994 I would have watched a similar amount of games to what you did, and when it got to the final, it was a limp ending, I tried watching 1998 as well, but by then I guess I realised that there were other games out there, which might not be as big, but just as stimulating.
Michael C said | October 14th 2008 @ 3:54pm | Report comment
Chris -
Denmark is fairly liberal in attitude - - and perhaps a generation was satisfied by the Euro’92 fairy tale campaign that included the ultimate final by defeating Germany……….nothing could top that (realistically).
The Parken stadium is being redeveloped - drops capacity from 42K to 38K, and during 2010 qualifiers capacity is just over 34K due to construction works.
On September 9, 1992 the rebuilt Idrætsparken, now called Parken, the biggest venue in Denmark with 42,000 seats, was opened with a 1-2 defeat by Germany. Parken has since been the sole stadium of the men’s senior national team matches, with a contract on all men’s senior matches until 2007. Meagre spectator support at some matches, which have attracted from 22,000 down to below 10,000 for the April 17, 2002 friendly 3-1 win over Israel, caused speculation that certain friendly matches might be moved to other stadiums around the country after 2007. In 2006 Parken’s 13-year monopoly on national team matches was broken, for a May 27, 2006 friendly game at NRGi Park, with World Cup 2006 participants Paraguay the opponent, almost 19,000 of the 22,227 tickets were sold within the first hour of sale. The game was a big success, support-wise, and another game at a new venue followed on September 1 at Brøndby Stadium. However, this match only attracted 13,186 spectators (in a 26,000 capacity stadium) and was deemed a relative failure. The reasons are thought to be a combination of the poor, rainy weather, and the fact that this stadium is located on the outskirts of Copenhagen, and as such does not attract a new demographic, as the travel distances and times to Parken are not much greater, if not lesser, for most of the population.
Denmark has other interests, and were certainly riding the fortunes of the national handball team at the olympics…(did you see their stunning after the hooter win of Russia??).
Millster said | October 14th 2008 @ 3:58pm | Report comment
Oikee - now I REALLY have to get cranky.
Your comment about ‘true sporting nations’ is SO arrogrant can’t you see. How dare we, as Australia, define a true sporting nation as a country that plays only those sports we enjoy? What would we say if, for example, China decided we were NOT a true sporting nation because we don’t play badminton, ping-pong and volleyball?
Uzbekistan, Qatar and countless other countries have people in them like you and I that will follow and play the sports played there. And the great thing about football is it is a common code and we have to respect whoever we come up against. I think this is the best illustration yet of the absolutely blinkered way in which some Australias view our place in the world. We are a relatively minor country, and we are in no place whatsoever to determine who is ‘true’ and who is not. Especially in terms of sporting prowess where, maybe apart from the exception of tennis, we have traditionally decided to compete only in bullshit insular little colonial codes and not in the real worldwide games.
Oh and in closing I noted you said “true sporting nations, also France”. France is far more at the heart of world sports than Australia ever has been or will be. And whiile we’re at it, Qatar and Uzbekistan are both a million times more sporting than Tonga and Samoa and the other shitsvilles that will play in your phony world cup (and it makes me sick to even call it a world cup). So while normally I like discussing with you, this has given me the total shits.
“True Sporting Nations”…. pfffft…. How dare you be so narrow minded.
Millster said | October 14th 2008 @ 3:58pm | Report comment
MC - on a clamer note… re Denmark - they are my beloved France’s nightmare team. We needed to beat them 2-0 to go through in 2002, and they beat us by the same (reversed) scoreline including getting Henry red-carded about 10 minutes in. And I thik they regularly give us grief in Europe.
Michael C said | October 14th 2008 @ 3:58pm | Report comment
Redb -
remember, the soccer fraternity is ALL ABOUT international ‘validation’………..more so than any other code - - that’s the irony………..there seems a desire to be so universal, 100% dominant because anything but is seen as a weakness (a very much glass 20% empty rather than 80% full mentality).
The reality is that the ‘world game’ shouldn’t care one bit about what people in Aust, US and Canada prefer………but………..to it’s continuing discredit - - the ‘world game’ keeps trying to force itself upon people who are quite content without it………..
ironic really.
True Tah said | October 14th 2008 @ 4:01pm | Report comment
chris,
I would challenge you to say to any of the teams in the RLWC that they are competing for a joke and see what happens.
I know a guy who played for the Lebanese Cedars in RLWC 2000, and he said it was an honour to play against the likes of the Kiwis and represent the country of his ancestors…he was also someone who I wouldnt say that he was wasting his time and it was all a big joke…
oikee said | October 14th 2008 @ 4:03pm | Report comment
Chris you dont sometimes look ignorant, you are full stop, you have plenty of games to watch so why do you start crap like this, just grab a tellie like millster and go for it, get your brain on overload if thats your wish, i will talk to M.C about our little games while you go off around the world signing your support. And you have your own soccer blog, go bore your mates there.This is a league blog i thought. You see what happens millster, your preaching has now turned me off soccer for good.