By Davidde Corran
September 23rd 2009 @ 12:33am
Related coverage
By pushing expansion, FFA have their priorities wrong
Gold Coast players react after Jason Culina scored in the 59th minute to put the Coast 2-0 up during the 1st round A-League football match between Brisbane Roar and Gold Coast United at Suncorp Stadium in Brisbane, Saturday, Aug. 8, 2009. (AAP Image/Dave Hunt)
“Not again.” Two words I’ve muttered twice today thanks to a couple different articles. The first was in regards to a blog on The World Game from Jesse Fink. As well as being a fellow columnist on The Roar, Fink regularly gave me his time on my former SBS Radio program and is a writer I have a lot of respect for.
While I disagree with his stance on Richard Porta, I suspect we might have had a similar reaction to the second of those articles.
You see, I was left feeling rather empty by some comments made by A-League chief Archie Fraser this week.
When asked about the Professional Footballers Association idea of an ‘Asian Marquee’ by The World Game, Fraser was quite dismissive.
“Another marquee player is not on the agenda,” explained the A-League supremo. “There have been some discussions on the issue but our feeling is it would create a gap between those that could afford it and those who couldn’t at a time when we are still building and developing the league.”
Fraser adding that “the bottom line is the league is in its fifth year and clubs are looking to build sponsorships and attendances and financially this just isn’t the right or most prudent time to be taking such measures.”
Cue the disappointment I know is being felt right across the Australian football community.
In truth, Fraser makes a reasonable argument but A-League clubs aren’t building on sponsorships and attendances. The clubs are barely struggling to hold on to what they’ve got.
Despite this season’s expansion and some high profile signings, for many, excitement is being dampened. Why? Because when club’s can’t even hold onto a squad player like Anton Kovacic you know something’s wrong.
Unlike Fraser and Football Federation Australia, I don’t believe a second Marquee spot will make the league one sided.
The A-League doesn’t have the reputation to even come close to drawing in world-class players. Not to mention that the A-League clubs that might be able to afford a second marquee can’t offer the salaries required to get them here.
For those reasons the quality of player a second marquee would bring in would be higher then your average A-League player, but they wont single headedly ruin the competition’s competitiveness.
There’s another side to this, as well.
The beauty of an Asian Marquee player isn’t just that it would enable us to sign Asian players who would be otherwise out of the A-League’s salary constraints.
The rule, which could also be used to sign an Australian player, would also work as a defence against the continued player drain out of the A-League to Asia.
If a high quality player is being tempted by big money overseas, the A-League club in question would have an avenue to fend off the interest.
Tell me it wouldn’t be worth Gold Coast United backer Clive Palmer’s money to go as close as he can to matching an offer from Saudi Arabia for Shane Smeltz?
Beyond that, an Asian Marquee spot could help clubs sign more ‘returning Socceroos’.
While it’s still unknown if Mark Viduka ever wants to play football again, he would be a better chance of playing for a Melbourne based A-League club if they weren’t restrained by the salary cap. It would be just what Melbourne Victory need right now both on the pitch and in the stands.
In the story on The World Game Fraser also mentioned that “Right now (FFA) are more concerned with managing expansion, and making sure that’s done in the most sustainable fashion.”
Well, what’s the point of expanding a league’s size if you can’t sustain its quality as it is?
Last year, with expansion looming on the horizon, concerns were already rife about the depth of playing stocks before the 3+1 rule was introduced. Now the player pool clubs can draw from has shrunk and is continuing to do so.
In protecting expansion and not the quality of players we have in the A-League at the moment, Football Federation Australian has got its priorities wrong.
I would rather a high quality ten team competition then what we’ll see dished out next year if the player drain continues.
Get Australia's best Football opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
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...
(27)
and I’m on the Roosters bandwagon a 12 point win to the chooks.
agga78 said | September 23rd 2009 @ 7:42am | Report comment
FFA have given the clubs the opportunity to sign marquee players and apart from Gold Coast and NQ Fury, the other 8 teams have gone for so so marquee players. Melbourne’s got Archie an above average A league player but no marquee, Alolsi at Sydney 33 years old was never a prolific score at any club in Europe he was at, but gets marquee status because he came on as a sub and scored a penalty in a shootout to get us to the world cup, which Sydney have now forgotten about. Vingiroli at the Jets was never a marquee but is being used as a marquee on 300k a year outside the cap, Mile at Perth is ok as a marquee, but not great either, Adelaide, Wellington, Central Coast,Brisbane don’t really have marquee players . So at the end of the day a 2nd marquee player will do nothing, because even with one marquee spot currently, clubs can’t or are unwilling to spend big money on a real marquee player, just average players on money outside of the cap.
Robbos said | September 23rd 2009 @ 8:58am | Report comment
So this is the main reason why a 2nd Asian marquee should be considered, while the likes of Thompson, Alosi & Sterjovski may not really be classified as marquee player they would it perfectly into the 2nd Asian marquee player. We all want to get to see these returning socceroos in the A-League & the only way we can afford them in the salary cap is thru the marquee process, but yes these are not the true marquees eg Fowler & Yorke. So hence the Asian marquee is perfect to get these type of players back into the A-League.
Imagine, next year, of course, we can’t affod them, but….
MV Viduka Marquee, Thompson Asian marquee.
GC Nedved marquee, Cullina Asian marquee
Nth Q Fowler marquee, Chipperfield Asian marquee
SFC Vieri marquee, Emerton asian marquee and Bosnich.
PG Larson marquee, Sterjoski asain marquee
CCM Kanu marquee, Beauchamp asian marquee
WP Chris Killen marquee, Joel Griffiths asian marquee
NJ Kevin Phillips marquee, Carle asian marquee
AU Nick Barmby marquee, Alosi asian marquee
BR Figo marquee, Schwartzer Asian marquee
Melbourne Heart Solsjaer marquee, Skoko Asian marquee,
West Sydney Lucas Neill Marquee, Kennedy Asian marquee
cab711 said | September 23rd 2009 @ 9:56am | Report comment
In essence lets just call it what it is then, raising the salary cap. If all the second marquee spot will be used for is to keep an existing player on the roster by offering him more money shouldnt they just raise the salary cap then. Lets create some real debt.
melbvictory87 said | September 23rd 2009 @ 7:52am | Report comment
a marquee should be a household name even if they are ageing. we need to target pavel nedved’s, kanu’s, henrik larssons, solskjaer etc. the only real marquee we have is fowler, culina isn’t a marquee hes just an amazing player. thompson was a good player but not a marquee and aloisi, well ive got no idea. i dont get how average socceroos that played in weaker european leagues get marquee status. i would never have put aloisi, thompson and sterjovski in those categories. mark viduka, yes he is marquee but the others are not. it was even more bizarre when nqf wanted to give jade north a marquee spot, now wouldnt that be silly
cab711 said | September 23rd 2009 @ 10:04am | Report comment
Good point and look what happened to North, he followed the Won and has been found out as a mediocre player getting splinters in his arse on the bench. Fury dodged the bullet on that one and I feel Matheson got a little hard done by the Jets and North. I even heard he may come back for a guest stint with Fury.
Pippinu said | September 23rd 2009 @ 7:52am | Report comment
I think the case for an Asian marquee is well made – I find it hard to believe that it’s not even on the agenda.
True Tah said | September 23rd 2009 @ 8:12am | Report comment
What about a Pacific Islander marquee – it would really help the game in places like the Solomon Islands/Vanuatu, plus it would do wonders for Australia’s goodwill in the futbol world…which would give us a boost in bidding for world cups.
Pippinu said | September 23rd 2009 @ 8:14am | Report comment
It’s a nice thought – I”m not sure of the realpolitik of such an idea (in terms of how it would go down around the board table of the AFC).
AndyRoo said | September 23rd 2009 @ 9:44am | Report comment
I think Archie’s reasons are solid though
There are 2 clubs reported as normally making a profit MV and CCM
The CCM mariners haven’t even used their marquee spot so it’s pretty safe to assume it is only MV who would do anything with it and not put them further in the red.
I think we have to slow down a bit and take more modest steps until the teams are better established. Throwing money at a big name player can put bums on seats in which case it’s not a drain but it’s a gamble. I don’t think we can really afford to compete with the petro dollars for Asian stars anyway.
I think MV’s move for Surat Sukah shows a lot more potential for marketing upside and engaging the continent than us brining in another Pom or Scot (Guys like McClinchy, Owusu and Charlie Miller have been great though) or another transient Brazilian who if really successful will quickly move on.
But by and large those Brazilans and Scots are less of a gamble on the field so I understand why Managers go for them.
I think that it’s currently (correct me if I am wrong) 5 visa spots and you can spend them on any nationality. Next time there is a call for it to be raised (after the next batch of players go to Europe) I would like to see it massaged into a 4 plus 2 mix.
You won’t get star players but if you have a Malaysian, Thai, Singapore or Indonesian player you are going to create a little bit of interest in those countries for the A league. And if MV play Uruwa in the ACL Final the Thais might support Melbourne
On the park I don’t want to play into stereotypes too much but Asian players are more technique and short passing orientated which is something most of us want too see more of (while not losing our physical traits).
whiskeymac said | September 23rd 2009 @ 9:45am | Report comment
i agree the asian marquee wasa good idea. i dont agree with the wholesale doom and gloom predictions on player drains. we survived when yorke left, when djite left and will survive when smeltz goes so long as the youth infrastructure can produce players like danning, de vere, agius etc.
David V. said | September 23rd 2009 @ 11:47am | Report comment
But are you ever guaranteed quality recruiting from Asia, and especially SE Asia? Mentioning Malaysia dampens credibility- that country is a football basket case and even Oceania nations might be a better bet.
Proven players from Europe and South America are still the safest options.
AndyRoo said | September 23rd 2009 @ 12:06pm | Report comment
That’s why I suggest the Visa rule rather than the Marquee change. I even said I understand why coaches go for players from traditional areas is becasue it’s less of a risk on the field. That’s why creating 2 spots that can only be Asian players makes it more worth the risk. Your then comparing what you can get in Asia for your money as opposed to what you can get in Australia.
The fact that Malaysian football is poorly run is an oppurtunity. It means players may be relatively underpaid or more likely to move.
So while we lose our best players to Japan we are also an attractive destiantion for those below us on the pecking order.
Asia is our confederation now not oceania. There is much more upside off the park to attracting Asian talent here.
David V. said | September 23rd 2009 @ 12:57pm | Report comment
No it means that Malaysia’s players are unfit and poorly disciplined, and have a disgustingly lackadaisical attitude to playing the game. That’s been part of the problem with Malaysian football for years.
AndyRoo said | September 23rd 2009 @ 4:05pm | Report comment
But is that a product of their environment or what causes it. I think it’s most likely because of the way the game is run (reading how players are treated in China and Malaysia) take a talented and hungry kid out of that environment and you might see a different result.
FIsher Price said | September 23rd 2009 @ 12:21pm | Report comment
Does Smeltz even qualify as Asian?
Culina, of course, would…
dasilva said | September 23rd 2009 @ 2:03pm | Report comment
I think Smeltz does have australian citizenship and would have been able to play for australia if he wasn’t already locked in for New Zealand.
Although I’m not too sure the asian rule would be valid for players who are elegible for an asian national team or is it players who have citizenship for Asian countries.
David V. said | September 23rd 2009 @ 2:49pm | Report comment
And Singapore’s Duric, Wilkinson and Bennett are as “Asian” as Smeltz and Culina
AndrewM said | September 23rd 2009 @ 2:58pm | Report comment
This is a long term view.. It is like building a house.. You must get your foundations right first, expand as much as possible, ie 12 teams, then worry about the finishes to what you have just built, ie your player quality etc.
Don’t forget clubs are spending money on youth development, with the advent of yet another marquee player that money would be better spent in our youth.. look at the players that have come out of the youth system in such a short time?? Imagine what will come in the next few years? Danning or Zura? list can go on.
Cmon I am sure you can see that spending more money on marquee players can WAIT, until the league can afford to do so.
Robbos said | September 23rd 2009 @ 3:54pm | Report comment
Good post Andrew I agree, build it!!!!
md said | September 23rd 2009 @ 4:05pm | Report comment
I suspect the issue may be re-visited after the next TV rights negotiation. Organic growth won’t provide the sort of funds necessary for all clubs to be able to afford this. Really, there’s only 3 clubs using the marquee position properly (and one of them just admitted to a $50K per week loss) – until there is a majority of clubs actually attracting marquee status players, there is no point in allowing clubs to try to attract additional marquee status players.
Realfootball said | September 23rd 2009 @ 5:38pm | Report comment
The bright new dawn of the A-League is fading. I suspect that the FFA is going to have to be very proactive in keeping the competition alive and interesting – and that includes ideas like Asian marquees, which seems to me to be an absolute no brainer. The League needs it, and it would help us enormously in Asia.
OzeToon said | September 23rd 2009 @ 6:28pm | Report comment
Fantastic story- the a league is in trouble with crowds IMHO up here in brissie that is mainly to do with ridiculous ticket prices. At the current crowd I have no idea how the roar could possibly spend more on players, especially after needing a bail out from the FFA last year.
Realfootball said | September 24th 2009 @ 8:44am | Report comment
Ah yes, the Roar’s ticket prices. How to knacker a club in easy lesson. They haven’t had the FFA bailout yet, though. Be a good thing, actually, given the fact that it would mean the idiots who put in place the current prices would no doubt be shown the door.
Davidde Corran said | September 24th 2009 @ 9:16am | Report comment
md by the time of the next TV rights deal it will be too late.
In fact it’s hardly going to be a negotiation. There’s only one party who can afford the rights (both financially and with the air time to broadcast them live) and that’s Fox Sports.
What we’ll see is Fox Sports saying we’ll pay x amount of dollars and FFA being forced to tow the line. The current deal includes the Socceroos World Cup qualifiers and that may not be a possibility next time thanks to them being added to the anti-siphoning list. So why should that deal increase significantly? Yes the product is worth more then what Fox Sports is paying but who else will offer that sort of money?
FFA aren’t helping the matter by making access to players, coaches and officials from the A-League and Socceroos almost exclusive territory for Fox Sports. The game just doesn’t get the kind of coverage it could otherwise. You need to spoon feed the media and, at times, FFA starve it.
Ben Buckley and co need to act now. We need a product that is exciting and entertaining not just ‘competitive’. Five nil-all draws a week is a sign of both a close competition and a bad one. A 4-3 victory which saw awful defending and sloppy goals is almost as bad. The standard must rise not drop and the 3+1 rule is making that a hard thing to muster.
Pippinu said | September 24th 2009 @ 9:39am | Report comment
I agree that if the Socceroos are added to the anti-siphoning list, Fox would have the FFA by the short and curlies in regard to the A-League.
But I think it’s a bit far fetched to suggest that that will be because of the 3+1 rule.
There are many factors at play here, before we even get down to examining the 3+1 rule.
Realfootball said | September 24th 2009 @ 10:36am | Report comment
The television landscape is changing fast, with the FTA networks adding digital channels right left and centre. The word is that Ten’s ONE is very interested in football. Yes, at the moment Fox are the only operation with the airtime to screen the games, but that situation is not set in stone.
Saji said | January 13th 2010 @ 5:28pm | Report comment
I think there should be a Socceroo/returning Socceroo marquee in addition to the main marquee player and youth marquee. A Brett Emerton or Vince Grella would put extra bums on seats (although not as many as Robbie Fowler). I think the Asian marquee would promote the A-League in Asia and be good for attracting Asian sponsors but wouldn’t improve the league’s standard much (we just can’t afford the best Asian players). Nor would it put more bums on seats because the average football punter here doesn’t even know that Yasuhito Endo is Asian player of the year.
Furthermore, all marquee players should be subject to the FFA approval (similar to what they do in the MLS). The FFA should publish a set of criteria that each category of marquee player must meet. This would prevent clubs just putting their highest paid player and highest paid Under 23 player on marquee status just to exclude them from the salary cap. Also, I think the FFA should pay part of the marquee player’s salary just like the MLS pays part of David Beckham’s salary. This way all clubs can get a Robbie Fowler or Dwight Yorke and it rewards the club for courting a player that meets the outlined criteria.