Where should A-League expansion end?

Columnist

By Adrian Musolino, 3 Feb 2009 Adrian Musolino is a Roar Expert

Tagged:: A-League, football, New South Wales, North Queensland, Queensland Roar, Socceroos, South Australia, Sydney FC, Western Australia

Related coverage

Canberra football fans, if you want an A-League team, get out and see the Socceroos in the Asian Cup qualifier against Kuwait. The decision to give the home fixture to the nations capital is a litmus test for the cities’ prospects for an A-League franchise.

The FFA is scouting possible expansion cities, but they should be wary about where they settle.

Two further teams will join the league in time for the 2010/11 season, most likely second Melbourne and Sydney teams. Fair enough.

But what of those other bids, like Canberra, with worthy claims to inclusion? Where should A-League expansion end. In other words, how many teams is sustainable given the early development stage the league is in?

Firstly, the A-League shouldn’t look to Queensland, South Australia or Western Australia.

Queensland will have no vacancies left after North Queensland and the Gold Coast enter next season. Even then it is yet to be determined what effect the two upstart franchises will have on the Queensland Roar.

Meanwhile, West Australia and South Australia are simply too small to support second A-League teams. Both have two AFL franchises respectively, but the one-team one city concept works best for these mid-sized cities.

In New South Wales, much depends on the makeup of the second Sydney franchise: most likely a West Sydney franchise based out of Penrith, Bankstown or Parramatta.

It would surely be beneficial for all concerned to unite the bids and not settle on one of the towns. Perhaps a generic West Sydney franchise pulling support from the surrounding areas of those towns.

Wollongong, under the South Coast FC bid, is also looking for inclusion from New South Wales and has the benefit of geographical isolation from Sydney.

Down south in Victoria, a second Melbourne team seems the safest bet for 2010 given the crowds generated by the Victory, while Geelong has also investigated the possibility of joining the league.

As I’ve written previously, Tasmania should be considered as a viable alternative, while Canberra already has a W-League presence and, judging by the FFA’s decision, is being seriously considered.

So with the second Melbourne team, Geelong, Wollongong, West Sydney, Tasmania and Canberra, the A-League would be up to sixteen teams.

Are sixteen teams too many?

Yes. The A-League doesn’t have the capacity to support as many teams, nor players in the short-term future.

FFA CEO Ben Buckley has said, “When and where we expand the competition is measured simply by whether it is right for football, right for the existing Hyundai A-League clubs, right for the new clubs and right for the local community.”

Very true and the FFA should not rush this process.

Make these franchises prove their worthiness for inclusion and add them slowly. Build anticipation. A-League fans are already looking forward to next season with a new bling team on the Gold Coast.

But the A-League’s success thus far can be partly attributed to the one-team-one-city model.

Don’t rush into second teams in Sydney and Melbourne because of simple economics. Remember, too, that these franchises will only succeed by dividing loyalties and robbing the original franchises of support.

As Sydney FC have demonstrated, putting together a successful football franchise is about much more than just settling in a big city and expecting people to turn up.

Take your time with expansion and make sure you get it right. As soon as we have limp franchises stagnating, we will only encourage the hungry ravens – hello Rebecca Wilson – who hover over the A-League waiting to attack.

Let’s hope Canberra football fans get out in force for the Socceroos in March and prove their worth for inclusion.

Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.

The Crowd Says (62) | Page 1 of Comments

StiflersMom said | February 3rd 2009 @ 6:39am | Report comment

So whats wrong with 12 teams and the smaller or later A-League bids become the second division. I seen thread in forums where people think the old NSL teams or the current state league teams will play off for the right to earn promotion, I don’t think so, could you imagine after 6 years of a system like that we’d end up with 4 Victotrian and 3 Sydney teams filling out the top places in the A-League..uurggh.

So its simple, use the smaller cities as a second division, it keeps with the 1 team 1 city thing who ever gets promoted and there is a better chance the second division will attract some following.

Reply
Kazama said | February 3rd 2009 @ 7:28am | Report comment

I’ve always believed that we need to be cautious with expanding the league in Australia. The last thing we want is to have another NZ Knights on our hands, and within our shores this time. The issue of whether we have enough talent to support new teams needs to be raised. I feel it was important to establish the youth league before expanding just to see exactly where we are at and so far I am happy that we have enough good young players to justify 10 teams, maybe 12. More than that, I’m uncertain, especially with the poachers from Japan, Korea and China coming into play this season.

Reply
Luke W said | February 3rd 2009 @ 7:53am | Report comment

I think 14 teams is a great number to aspire to in the future:

NQ
Brisbane
Gold Coast
Newcastle
Central Coast
Sydney
West Sydney
Canberra
Melbourne
Geelong
Tasmania
Adelaide
Perth
New Zealand

Reply
Brian Munich said | February 3rd 2009 @ 7:58am | Report comment

Those with longer memories will be a little uneasy as talk turns to expansion. The pained journey of the hapless NSL through the 70s, 80s and 90s remains a cautionary tale to be heeded. The 12-club foundation model quickly foundered as the smaller clubs went broke at the same time that there were huge calls for expansion, a second division, regional conferences and so on. Which led to the rapid loss of commercial TV coverage, years of instability and lower playing standards. In the context of the challenges now facing the A-league, the following apply in my view:

1. The league would do well to hold to its tenets of financial stability of its clubs, first and foremost. Expansion should be considered conservatively. I would allow some time to test whether the Townsville franchise will in fact make it (Gold Coast should be on more solid footing).
2. The smaller financial base in this country, the competition of other codes, and the tyranny of distance are sufficient reasons to knock out any idea of a second division in the foreseeable future. The prospect of relegation from the A-league is enough to instil doubt in the minds of potential investors or sponsors.
3. The huge success of clubs like Melbourne Victory has been a direct consequence of the one club, one city model. Although the supporter base in Melbourne should be able to sustain a second club, my fear is that there is a risk that a two-club basis could threaten the ethnic neutrality that Victory enjoys. I would hate to see a situation where the code was plunged back into the old Knights/Hellas days that the AFL-media loved to pillory.
4. I don’t think Geelong is a solution – they would become the A-league equivalent of Gippsland Falcons. And it’s hard to see Canberra succeeding where they failed two or three times in the old NSL, where the qualifying hurdle was much lower.

Reply
trained monkey said | February 3rd 2009 @ 9:48am | Report comment

Just a couple of thoughts on A-league expansion and optimal size.

Firstly, use the new franchise options, including the Melbourne and Sydney teams to create a 2nd division. Also, allow for the possibility of maybe 2 state league teams to be included as well, but only if they can meet strict criteria. This would allow for a 6-8 team competition. Also by having Melbourne and Sydney involved in the start up of it, it allows for media exposure in those cities and for the possibility of not splitting fans as much because they could follow both teams in those cities. Also, follow the Japanese example of while building the 2nd division, you allow for promotion to the 2nd division from semi-professional leagues, but not have relegation from the 2nd division. These teams will probable have to adopt a more grassroots establishment to survive so they could follow the plan of the CCM and may even become fairly well off teams. I believe the Japanese model of expansion, especially of the growth of their 2nd division is a good model to follow.

Also, what if we were to keep the size of the competition, either with or without a 2nd division, small like say the SPL. This may be necessary because of a limtied fan and sponsorship base. As a goal, say a 12 team division 1 and a 10 team division 2, even if a couple of decades away, may be realistic.

With this model, and talk recently of a Cup competition, what about a League Cup style format rather then an allinclusive FA Cup style format. In a 2 tier system with 10 teams in the 1st div and say 6-8 in the start up 2nd div, it would allow for a knockout Cup competition which some people seem to want, without having to include the old NSL teams which FFA seem to distance themselves from.

I also believe that the salary cap should be raised, maybe to say $5 million in a few years. This will allow for those clubs which are more financially capable to flex some muscle, but wont allow them to take over the league completely, while also forcing the other clubs to want and need to reach what should be realistic financial goals. Not all clubs may be able to spend to the limit, but it could potentially keep some of our rising talent hear, while attracting good Asian players or Socceroos back home.

Anyway, i think expansion should be based on the capabilities of the franchises to survive and their future prospects. I also think that it is achievable. And sorry for the long post.

Reply
Millster said | February 3rd 2009 @ 10:48am | Report comment

I must say my bias is the same as Brian’s. Quality over quantity. I have no problems with a 10 or 12 team league if it is one that provides exciting football of a standard that befits an elite domestic league for our country, and in which each of the represented states/regions has a club with some real quality and a mix of Aussie developmental players alongside a smattering of talented imports.

We’re now at 10 and with Western Sydney and 2nd Melbourne will go to 12 – and these inclusions I can understand. What I have my doubts about, for different reasons, is the choice of North Queensland in the current expansion, and the continuing viability (both politically with AFC and simply logically) of the Wellington team. I guess what I’m saying is that even if we do stop at 12 there will be those 2 franchises that we may either want or need to relocate to other strategic areas for the code down the track and they provide some of the strategic ‘flex’ that the FFA way want to retain.

For mine, once we get to that 12 number, the focus should switch to delivering a brilliant product with those clubs. And in parallel some real concerted focus should be spent on the premier level of the state leagues, whether or not this includes intergration of any kind into the A-League system (eg through a Cup or suchlike).

Reply
sheek said | February 3rd 2009 @ 11:00am | Report comment

I know Canberra is roughly one-tenth the population of Sydney & Melbourne, one-fifth the population of Brisbane & one-third the population of Perth & Adelaide. Roughly, I said!

But it amazes me Canberra isn’t represented in the A-League. I know it’s pushing the limits of the nation’s capital in expecting it to house national domestic teams in rugby union, rugby league, soccer & perhaps in the future also, Australian football. Anyway, that’s just a personal view.

Then there’s NZ. I don’t like NZ having only one team in an Australian domestic comp, because inevitably it’s seen as a quasi-national team, even if it does include Aussie nationals. So for me, it’s either no NZ representation, or a minimum 2 teams. Again, this is just a personal view.

Anyway, here’s my wish list for the future A-League.
1. Sydney
2. Melbourne
3. Adelaide
4. Perth
5. Brisbane
6. Newcastle
7. Central Coast
8. Wellington NZ
9. Gold Coast
10. North Qld
11. Sydney West
12. Melbourne East
13. Canberra
14. Auckland NZ

But that might not be the end of it. Wollongong, Geelong, Tasmania & Sunshine Coast would be another 4 clubs wanting an invitation in the next 10 years also.

There’s no reason the A-League can’t have an 18-20 team comp by 2020 to 25, but it will need to do everything right in the meantime.

Reply
Michael C said | February 3rd 2009 @ 11:01am | Report comment

I would suggest expansion just for the sake of it is dangerous. Soccer doesn’t have the same game growth issues or domestic focus as either of the NRL/AFL have. Strategically – - protecting a strong base (NRL in Syd and AFL in Melb) is not an issue for the HAL. So – - the HAL and it’s advocates firstly need to separate themselves from the ‘numbers games’ of the AFL and NRL.

Where the perfect fit is for number of teams, structure of the fixture, combination of ‘regional’ vs capital city, requirements of the AFC, quality of players staying in/returning to Australia, broadcast revenue, attendances, P&R or not, divisions or not etc etc…………….there are so many issues to be faced by the FFA re the HAL that as an AFL person – - I wouldn’t dare suggest what I think they should or shouldn’t do other than, as above, don’t expand just for the sake of ‘number of teams’, simply – because AFL and NRL are not the ‘ideal’ design for a ‘new’ national league. (although, both have certain advantages that balance the disadvantages – of having a super strong ‘home fortress’ fan base and broadcast market).

Reply
Pippinu said | February 3rd 2009 @ 11:05am | Report comment

There’s no doubting that ten teams is infinitely better than eight, and that 12 teams would probably be better again.

Beyond that, there are no hard and fast rules and a whole lot of exigencies come into the equation.

I for one am not concerned about the lack of players. There are thousands of 15 to 17 year old players out there now who will be a good A-League standard if they get quality coaching and are given a chance. This season alone, I can name ten 17-19 year olds who have debuted in the A-League straight off the top of my head (not even counting Pinto!). On top of that, there are dozens upon dozens of players eking out an existence in the lower echelons of European football, hoping to make it – most won’t – and the A-League will be there for them.

Reply
Millster said | February 3rd 2009 @ 11:07am | Report comment

MC – I thoroughly agree with your post above.

Reply