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
114 Have your say
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.
Recommend this story.
- Explore:
- A-League, football, Melbourne Victory
March 5th 2009 @ 10:26am
Michael C said | March 5th 2009 @ 10:26am | Report comment
Pip –
exactly,
the reasons why Adelaide is a good example are that theoretically it ticks the boxes of x-town rival, a game a week live plus a game a week beamed into the local tv market, etc etc.
but – the reality can be fragile.
For a variety of reasons.
Pip -
d’ya reckon Albie R ‘ll be happy now???
March 5th 2009 @ 10:28am
Towser said | March 5th 2009 @ 10:28am | Report comment
Agree with everybody who has doubts about a second team for Melbourne being viable.
March 5th 2009 @ 10:35am
Redb said | March 5th 2009 @ 10:35am | Report comment
The only viable second Melbourne team would be South Melbourne.
Redb
January 4th 2010 @ 11:18am
Al said | January 4th 2010 @ 11:18am | Report comment
Why so?
March 5th 2009 @ 10:41am
Pippinu said | March 5th 2009 @ 10:41am | Report comment
redb
over the course of the last two years I have softened my stance considerably on South Melbourne, and I agree with you. It really was time for the FFA to let bygones by bygones, and they may have blown it.
South would immediately pull a crowd of 10,000+ first time round, zero marketing, no sweat at all.
They could even have probably played out of the Bob Jane Stadium, which probably has a capacity very similar to Hindmarsh, and would have been ideal for Melbourne’s “lesser” team.
And talk about a derby – now that would have been a derby in every sense of the word! Go close to filling the Dome. Palermo vs Catania proportions. You’d fear for you life going along – but it would be a huge event.
March 5th 2009 @ 10:49am
Brian said | March 5th 2009 @ 10:49am | Report comment
There appears very little chance for a second Melbourne team. The only possible geographical different area with a large enough population in Victoria is South-East Melb, however soccer is more popular in the north-west and there is not a stadium for a team to realistically play in Dandenong. If the Heart set themselves up with no differentiation they will fail. I believe there is one joker in the pack – South Melbourne. They have the right name, the supporters, the ready-made training facility (Lakeside) and hopefully a realisation that if they don’t get the secnod license their club is due to wither into an amatuer VPL side for eternity. So if the FFA and South Melbourne both realise they need each other the olny way forward is a second club called South Melbourne, based in Lakeside, playing at the new stadium in a non-blue strip, focused on Melbourne’s South-East and without reference to Greek heritage. The club would draw 10,000 to games easily. Of course many compromises would have to be made and it would be difficult at first but for South Melbourne even more than the FFA its now or never.
March 5th 2009 @ 11:01am
Redb said | March 5th 2009 @ 11:01am | Report comment
Pip,
It is the only way a second team will work, these made up franchise teams work fine in the one team one sity concept but creating two teams is just hubris. If fans want some soccer in their sporting diet Melb Victory fits the bill, why look further in Melbourne. As has been mentioned Victory have done such a good job it is virtually too good for a second team.
There will be no point of difference between Victory and Hearts.
South Melb are like Fremantle and Port Adelaide in the AFL, both second teams from originally strong state based local comps with a ready made fanbase.
Redb
March 5th 2009 @ 11:03am
Lazza said | March 5th 2009 @ 11:03am | Report comment
There were 22,000 empty seats at the Crows v Power derby last year? The novelty seems to have worn off?
Say what you want about Adelaide United but we are the 5th best team in the world and have the trophy to prove it!
March 5th 2009 @ 11:44am
Pippinu said | March 5th 2009 @ 11:44am | Report comment
Lazza
if you want to believe that AU is the 5th best team in the world, that’s fine.
You might be right that the novelty of the Crows v Power derby is wearing thin (I couldn’t care less personally).
But the fact remains that the Crows membership figures are through the roof, with a wating list to boot – and that’s at least double whatever Port has – that’s the key point about comparing the Crows/Port situation with the Victory/Hearts situation.
As a Southerner, surely you can see the point of that comparison?
March 5th 2009 @ 11:50am
Michael C said | March 5th 2009 @ 11:50am | Report comment
Lazza -
remember, the first ‘derby’ last year, in rnd 3, Ade home game drew 45.5K, the 2nd one you’re refering to was rnd 16, Port had already hoisted the white flag for the season and already started putting injured stars out to pasture (to get surgery). (ironically, Port won, the last couple of stars headed straight off for surgey, it was like their grand final, but, their 2nd half of the year crowd downturn on the back of a dismal year had kicked in, and the 31.6K was about 12K up on most their 2nd half of year crowds. Perhaps the Crows fans weren’t about to pay at the gate to attend an ‘away’ game at that stage of the year.
If the 31.6K is the worst they’ll do, then fine.
The question isn’t about the novelty of the derbys, so much, as the capacity of a city the size of Adelaide to sustain both clubs during an economic downturn.
March 5th 2009 @ 11:54am
Slippery Jim said | March 5th 2009 @ 11:54am | Report comment
“The FFA did try to halt the progress of the Victory, with 4 soft red cards within 5 games – but they clearly failed”
Of course, the players had nothing to do with it did they Pippu, with their violent conduct, spitting, swearing, diving.
The FFA successfull handed Melbourne the title by Breeze red carding Adelaide’s main goal threat in the first 15 mins of the grand final, which is, as we all know, the only match that actually means anything in the A-League.