Does Melbourne need a second A-League team?

Columnist

By Adrian Musolino, 5 Mar 2009 Adrian Musolino is a Roar Expert

Tagged:: A-League, football, Melbourne Victory

Related coverage

In some ways, the Melbourne Victory has been too successful, especially for the prospects of a second franchise in the city. With Melbourne certain to have a new franchise in the next round of A-League expansion, how can this new club hope to compete with the team that has united the city and is the benchmark of the competition?

There is no denying Melbourne has the economic might, sporting culture and people power to make a second franchise possible.

Two Melbourne sides are battling it out for the NBL title, as I write.

But the experience of the NBL when it to comes to franchises in Melbourne should act as an example of how difficult it is to decide on the makeup of a second franchise when competing against the established team.

Second NBL franchises in Melbourne have tended to have geographical bases: South Dragons, North Melbourne Giants and South East Melbourne Magic. When the latter two merged to create the Victoria Titans, the franchise only lasted four years, despite on court success.

A franchise based out of the southern district of Melbourne seems to be the preferred option, for one of the bidders at least. But what about South Melbourne FC, the former NSL powerhouse currently playing in the Victorian Premier League?

Would the new franchise have any link with them and how would the FFA feel about a connection with a former NSL club?

But unlike in Sydney, which has the its ever growing western suburbs, Melbourne doesn’t have such a significant population and economic area outside its capital. As anyone who has spent time in Melbourne will know, it is such a centralised city and even the suburbs which represent the AFL teams are, in the main, in such close proximity to each other and the CBD.

And let’s be honest in terms of expectations and numbers: more would be asked of an A-League franchise compared to an NBL one.

Melbourne Victory has done so well as a franchise at uniting Victorians and making such giant strides into the community, it would be very difficult for a second franchise to turn up and attempt to compete with that, especially without a distinct feature.

Unless the second Melbourne franchise has a separate geographic base, then the rivalry between the two will be manufactured and, to a certain extent, meaningless.

Melbourne Victory The Original versus Melbourne Victory Mark II.

Fans will have to be given some reason to want to jump off the Victory ship. Unless they are given one, then the second franchise has a very difficult task in store, and no one wants to see the NBL example play out in which you have a number of franchises coming and going.

But a second Melbourne franchise seems a certainty: they will have first dibs at the next round of expansion.

It may also be a necessity to halt the progress of the Victory if, long term, the FFA does open the floodgates by reworking or possibly doing away with the salary cap.

With an average crowd double that of its rivals, Melbourne Victory would confirm its title of being the “Manchester United” of the A-League and could very well dominate the competition in a manner akin to the arms race that is the EPL.

You have to wonder if the FFA should have acted sooner to push for the second Melbourne franchise before the Victory had so long to cement itself in Melbourne.

A second franchise does make sense and should capitalise on being in Australia’s biggest sporting market. However, its makeup will be critical in determining its sustainability.

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 (114) | Page 1 of Comments

Rusty0256 said | March 5th 2009 @ 7:46am | Report comment

I see no problems with having a second Melbourne team. Think of all those long weeks that Victory were on the road last year. With a second team in town, playing mostly when Victory was not, well I can tell you now, I’m not going to be sitting at home watching the cricket!
Seriously I think you are going to get many supporters going to both teams games, I know I will. Of course when they play each other we’re going to choose sides (and for me it will always be Victory) but won’t it be fun to have another Melbourne side toi stick it up the Adelaide Pissants?

Reply
midfield geneal said | March 5th 2009 @ 8:40am | Report comment

Not if they are a start-up team sharing the same ground…I know this happens in Europe or South America, but there’s 100+years of history behind these teams. They might be better off somewhere like Geelong? Melbourne is a big city but probably not big enough for two teams at this point. Only other way might be for the new team to differentiate itself from Victory by religion or ethnicity, but somehow that won’t go down too well in modern Australia….

Reply
Albert Ross said | March 5th 2009 @ 9:33am | Report comment

Why aren’t there 14 posts from Michael C and 3 from Pipinmola here already arguing that a second Melb team is not justified and in event would be just another reason why AFL cannot be deflected from its predestined path of becoming the only sport played in known universe.

Are they being moderated out?

Reply
jimbo said | March 5th 2009 @ 9:35am | Report comment

Yes.
It will be an instant success.
The rivalry will develop from anything – doesn’t have to be geographical or philosophical.
Victorians can be like that.

Just let them dare touch a hair of Carlos Hernandez or Archie Thompson’s head!
Or heaven help them, if they beat Victory in a “home” game.

Reply
Pippinu said | March 5th 2009 @ 9:44am | Report comment

It may also be a necessity to halt the progress of the Victory if, long term, the FFA does open the floodgates…

The FFA did try to halt the progress of the Victory, with 4 soft red cards within 5 games – but they clearly failed.

Reply
Brian Munich said | March 5th 2009 @ 9:53am | Report comment

Please put aside any notion that a team based from Geelong or anywhere else in Victoria has any chance of being sustainable. They would simply become an A-league version of Gippsland Falcons and will fail. So you’re left with the reality of a second Melbourne team with simply no geographical differentiation. Which leads to a risk in my view – either the second team will fail because there aren’t enough willing to get off the Victory bandwagon (and I’m one of them) or will there be a risk of another unintended differentiator. If there’s even the tiniest hint of a split along ethnic lines, it would plunge the A-league back to the bad old days.

Reply
David V. said | March 5th 2009 @ 10:00am | Report comment

Western Sydney, Wollongong, Canberra are all far more logical due to being strong football heartlands. Simple as that.

Reply
- Doyles said | August 26th 2009 @ 9:33am | Report comment
  
  I can tell you now that the “strong football heartland” in Canberra is non-existent. Rugby Union is king here (with League a close second).
  
  Reply
Michael C said | March 5th 2009 @ 10:07am | Report comment

The example of the 2nd NBL basketball team is littered with Magic, Giants and Spectres, and now we have the Dragons……..

King of Swamp Castle: When I first came here, this was all swamp. Everyone said I was daft to build a castle on a swamp, but I built in all the same, just to show them. It sank into the swamp. So I built a second one. That sank into the swamp. So I built a third. That burned down, fell over, then sank into the swamp. But the fourth one stayed up. And that’s what you’re going to get, Lad, the strongest castle in all of England.

well, the South Dragons are the fourth one that’s stayed up,….so far.

Perhaps because they have unified the previous supporters of the other incarnations of a 2nd Melb team??

Perhaps the time is just ‘right’.

who knows.

PErhaps a 2nd Melb team is needed to unify the ‘Not The Victory’ elements. Included Sth Melb Hellas supporters (or would they still be dirty that they are frozen out of the HAL whilst Glory, effectively Bris Lions and Adelaide City lived on.

- – but, the AFL model shows that 2 teams per capital city is best.

Reply
- AndyRoo said | January 4th 2010 @ 11:49am | Report comment
  
  Al rekindled this thread and I saw this post. Must say in hindsight the NBL example is quite funny (if your not a dragons supporter).
  
  5th time lucky?
  
  Reply
Michael C said | March 5th 2009 @ 10:14am | Report comment

Albert Ross -

if you can, can you allow the thread a little more time for my allocated 13 other posts.

btw -

if a 2nd MElb team can actually survive and thrive in the current economic climate, against the massive headstart that Victory has achieved – - then good on them, it will be a mighty, mighty effort. Everything is stacked against them.

The only thing stacked in their favour is the need for a game a week in a city the size of Melbourne.

The comparisons of SYdney and Brisbane in Soccer AND AFL for that matter is all about geographically distinct 2nd teams either Syd vs Wst Syd or Bris vs Gold Coast.

A game a week within 1.5 hours of each other is one thing. Sitting a start up club effectively right on top of (or, buried 4.5 feet below) and existing hugely successful club is quite another. (remembering that MVFC are only marginal about turning a profit this year – - the HAL and it’s clubs is still on shakey ground, and with falling crowds this year – whether a view of the forthcoming 10 years of consolidation or not – it means that non-core revenue is all the more important. ANd or new revenue streams such as FTA or other broadcast rights etc.). It’s a gamble.

Does Melb NEED a 2nd team??? want a 2nd team??? is it just a nice to have?? Presently MVFC is so far ahead of the field on crowds, members, on field success – - it’s not needed to help MVFC via a pseudo x-town rivalry.

Other markets NEED the help more so.

Is it a nice to have? And attempt to create a 2nd MVFC? That won’t just happen. WIll it erode MVFC’s base?

The joker in the pack is the never stadium. That may engage enough of the unengaged Euro soccer snobs to attend. That may be enough.

Reply
Pippinu said | March 5th 2009 @ 10:21am | Report comment

– - but, the AFL model shows that 2 teams per capital city is best.

for the moment, you’re only really talking about Perth and Adelaide – and in both cases, the AFL got their point of differentiation, although the Adelaide example is an interesting one.

Adrian will know about that exmaple better than I, but I’m sure he too would see a similarity between the Adelaide AFL situation and that of the Victory.

The Crows came into the AFL as a quasi-state team in 1993, and got huge support almost immediatley (Port followed 4 years afterwards).

It was only natural that Port would take the 2nd license, given its very impressive history – but their attempts to distance themselves from the Magpies have probably not been all that successful, thus we end up with a situation where the vast bulk of Adelaide supports the Crows (with memberships only limited by the capacity of AAMI stadium, and enormous waiting lists the envy of every sporting club in Australia), and with the remainder supporting Port, but that being mostly Magpie supporters (a reasonable number, but nowhere near what the Crows have).

The situation could well end up being worse for the 2nd Melbourne A-League team, since it will not even have the solid base that Port had in the AFL.

So, whereas the Crows has pretty much a 2:1 advantage in memberships and attendances, the Victory will end up with a 4:1 advantage in Melbourne – guaranteed.

You’re talking about 5,000 in memberships, and an average attendance of 8,000 – tops.

That might be acceptable for the comp’s 12th club – so it may not be a huge issue. Anyway, someone has to finish bottom every season, it may as well be Hearts.

I couldn’t care less – as long as we thump them every meeting and get our standard 9 points per season – I don’t give a damn. We will sell out the new stadium with or without Hearts on the scene.

Reply