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
- Sydney FC news
- Football news
- A-League news
- Socceroos news
- Socceroos Fixtures news
- Socceroos 2014 FIFA World Cup Qualifying news
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.
Recommend this story.
February 3rd 2009 @ 11:09am
True Tah said | February 3rd 2009 @ 11:09am | Report comment
Agree with Millster, a Western Sydney team is a necessity, and I think a 12 team comp would be the right number.
A lot of people talk about Canberra, Wollongong, Tasmania and Darwin, but these would end up being rocks which would weigh down the league too much, despite how much chest beating FFA may be able to say that they are the only team to have teams in these places.
February 3rd 2009 @ 11:17am
sheek said | February 3rd 2009 @ 11:17am | Report comment
It might be a bit unrealistic, considering Canberra is less than one-tenth the population of either Sydney or Melbourne, & is already committed nationally to both rugby codes, but it just seems right the national capital should be represented in the A-League.
Then there’s NZ. The problem with having only one NZ team in an Australian domestic comp, is that it ends up being a quasi-national team, even if it does include Aussie nationals. So for me, it’s either a minimum 2 NZ teams, or none.
By 2015, having the following 14 teams is neither unrealistic or unreasonable.
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
And of course, that doesn’t include South Coast (W’gong), Geelong, Tasmania (Hobart) or Sunshine Coast, who will all be clamouring for inclusion over the next 10 years or so.
I am a champion of the one team/one city/one region concept, which in another life might be known as a provincial setup. However, in the case of Sydney, as I discussed with a colleague recently, there might be too many people pulling in too many different directions, making the club dysfunctional.
Consequently, in the case of both Sydney & Melbourne, having 2 teams representing each of those cities might not seem such a bad idea.
February 3rd 2009 @ 11:24am
onside said | February 3rd 2009 @ 11:24am | Report comment
What does a return trip cost for a team flying from Perth to Wellington.
This must be the longest journey in the world for a home and away game
February 3rd 2009 @ 11:26am
True Tah said | February 3rd 2009 @ 11:26am | Report comment
onside
actually I understand that in the Russian comp, there was a team from Vladivostok competing at the top level, now Vladivostok is probably just as far as Perth is from Wellington – I dont know how profitable the Russian comp is, and how these clubs can afford these sort of costs.
February 3rd 2009 @ 11:27am
sheek said | February 3rd 2009 @ 11:27am | Report comment
And I agree with Brian, Michael C & Millster’s comments. The FFA should not get carried away with the numbers game.
In another discussion with another colleague, we both agreed the NRL didn’t realistically have enough quality players for a 16 team comp. For the NRL, a 14 or perhaps even 12 team comp would be really tight, & quite awesome.
And despite the self-satisfied feelings of the AFL, they have a number of clubs, especially in Melbourne, who are struggling financially. The AFL are talking about 18 clubs, but I would seriously re-configure their current 16 clubs.
6 clubs in Melbourne (incl. Geelong), 2 each in Perth, Adelaide & Sydney, & one each in Brisbane, Gold Coast, Canberra & Tasmania. It would require 4 Melbourne clubs relocating, something neither the AFL or the clubs are willing to contemplate.
Anyway, only expand when you are sure of your ground & your markets. These are tricky times.
February 3rd 2009 @ 11:35am
Albert Ross said | February 3rd 2009 @ 11:35am | Report comment
Don’t even mention Banlstown as a location for a western Sydney team.
It has to be in Parramatta which is well served by public transport and the highway system.
And it would make the HAL GFs vs SFC played at ANZ virtually a home game.
February 3rd 2009 @ 11:49am
Albert Ross said | February 3rd 2009 @ 11:49am | Report comment
The distances in the RPL make the HALs look like cross town jaunts. FC Luch-Energiya’a really really big trip was to Grozny which must be over 10 000 kms. Perth to Welly is a mere 5257.56 kms,
However FC Luch-Energiya was relegated and in 2009 the furthest west anyone has to travel is to FC Tom Tomsk
February 3rd 2009 @ 11:54am
Albert Ross said | February 3rd 2009 @ 11:54am | Report comment
^^^ I meant east
February 3rd 2009 @ 12:01pm
Redb said | February 3rd 2009 @ 12:01pm | Report comment
I agree with True Tah, 12 teams is about right.
the no brainers that should always have a team and will survive:
Sydney
Melbourne
Perth
Adelaide
Brisbane
Gold Coast
Those that work for now (3 out of 4 to survive the next decade):
Central Coast
Newcastle
Wellington
Nth Qld
Additions that may work, picking 3 out of 7 possiblities:
Nth Qld
Tasmania
Canberra
2nd Melb
Geelong
West Sydney
Southern Sydney-Illawarra
Forget about Darwin.
12 teams is sustainable for this country.
Redb
February 3rd 2009 @ 12:02pm
jaymz said | February 3rd 2009 @ 12:02pm | Report comment
I think a 14 team comp would be viable, however extreme caution by th FFA should be taken. I think if we have enough to suggest that all 14 teams would be viable in the long term then we should go for it. i would like to to see the 2nd sydney and melbourne teams, then canberra and tasmania. Tasmania has potential to go really well if is based off the Mariners model, particularly because apart from cricket they have no professional team (they do get the odd afl game). Once we reach a 14 comp i believe it should be left at that number for a long while, a 2nd division and cup comp should take precedent over expanding above 14 teams.