Fear and loathing is ruling Australian sports

Columnist

By Adrian Musolino, 8 Dec 2009 Adrian Musolino is a Roar Expert

Tagged:: AFL, Andrew Demetriou, football, Rugby League, Socceroos

Related coverage

AFL CEO Andrew Demetriou addresses the media during an AFL Media Conference at AFL House, Melbourne. Slattery Images

“World Game? What a joke! World Cup? Leave it to the English, Italians and the rest of them,” claimed Albert of Melbourne on the Herald Sun website, one of the thousand plus hateful comments that littered sites across the web following the AFL’s claim that they will lose a season if there was an Australian World Cup.

“AFL vs. the World” declared the News Limited press; appearing to cheerlead the squabble between our national game and the world game.

The corresponding article here on The Roar had over 250 comments before the sun had set.

It was an impeccably timed response from AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou; just as the World Cup draw and Australia’s World Cup bid were in the national spotlight, not to mention at a time when the AFL is in its deep slumber.

The AFL has every right to protect its product, and the fact remains this question surrounding the fate of our national codes during the World Cup was one of the biggest question marks that surrounded an Australian World Cup – a question no one wanted to discuss.

It is an immensely complex issue, and without clear guidelines and expectations from FIFA, there can be no clear solution to the issue at present.

But if we are fighting amongst ourselves so fervently, what chance do we stand against the might of the USA and England?

The fact is if we are to stage the World Cup, it’ll require immense concessions from every other code, made more complex by our suitable stadium shortage, and we must, therefore, work in close cooperation to find suitable solutions, not allowing people to hijack the debate and deal in absolutes.

This is only the start. If such extremity continues, how are we going to find a workable solution so all codes can be accommodated?

With each such statement from Demetriou or the like, Australia’s World Cup bid – which was always going to be a challenge – appears even more doomed.

Yes, perhaps Demetriou has exaggerated for effect, but what concerns me most is the dogma attached to this debate. Perhaps this was part of Demetriou’s ploy.

Denigrate the very idea of the World Cup by striking fear into the hearts of his games’ followers.

It’s not only this dogmatic rhetoric of “AFL vs. the World” but also the hatred and ethnic division that’s being attached to these World Cup claims.

Jack, another contributor to the aforementioned Herald Sun article, wrote when putting his case as to why the AFL shouldn’t cave in to FIFA: “Yes it will upset a lot of immigrants, however if you chose to live in this country, its traditions and sport come with the package.”

How very sad there are people who still think like that.

If so many of us ‘sports fans’ are going to denigrate the World Cup – with feelings of bitterness, hatred and contempt – then are we truly deserving host’s of a tournament revered around the world?

Amongst the bitterness and hatred lies one query.

Where has the enthusiasm that greeted the build up to the Sydney Olympics gone?

Arguably, on television ratings and economic worth alone, the FIFA World Cup would be a greater benefactor to Australia – certainly in terms of showcasing Australia to a global audience once again.

Would AFL fans be unable to join in the celebrations of our World Cup? Do the Socceroos not belong to them, too?

For all the protestation and arguing, remember they are two great sports that can co-exist, and there are many who love them both.

The World Cup doesn’t represent an ‘invasion’ – and awful phrase that has been thrown up with its racial overtones – and AFL fans shouldn’t fear its game will be starved by football. And that flawed reasoning can be the only explanation for why the World Cup, compared with the Olympics, is creating such angst.

Commonsense needs to come to the fore here.

What strikes me most in this debate is how insular and one-dimensional Australian society has become – and sport is a microcosm of society.

Despite the huge strides made in our multicultural land, ethnicity and race are still used as fodder in many of the flawed arguments for why ‘soccer’ is not an Australian game. We seem to be unable to deal with such issues with logic, compromise and acceptance, rather so many resort to absolutes – black or white, yes or no.

Dogma and fear are tarnishing Australia’s chances of hosting the world’s biggest sporting event.

Sadly, we have become the new America: introverted and overly protective.

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 (709) | Page 1 of Comments

Gatto Nero said | December 8th 2009 @ 4:20am | Report comment

The thing I find amazing – even more so because it’s not being discussed in the media – is that soccer isn’t being asked to contribute anything to host the World Cup. Rival codes are being asked to suspend or cancel their seasons and the Federal and State governments are being asked to foot the very hefty infrastructure bill. The Federal government are even underwriting the bid process.

The profit from the World Cup goes to FIFA, so any financial benefit to Australia comes in the form of tourism and exposure, which is difficult to account for and nearly impossible for governments to leverage to finance infrastructure projects (ahead of time) or pay compensation to those affected by the tournament. Why don’t the FFA or FIFA have to contribute anything to an event that only they stand to benefit from?

Reply
- andrewMc said | December 8th 2009 @ 4:29am | Report comment
  
  The PriceWaterhouseCoopers study found that the world cup would generate close to $5 billion for the Australia economy (I think that was the figure, I’ll see if I can find it for you so I can confirm the number)
  
  And a similar question to yours, Why does the AFL not have to pay a single cent for a state of the art stadium at Adeliade oval? I guess the FFA aren’t the only people set to benefit from the WC
  
  Reply
  - Gatto Nero said | December 8th 2009 @ 4:40am | Report comment
    
    My argument wasn’t that the Cup won’t generate financial activity in Australia, simply that I am yet to read any announcement of soccer bodies willing to pick up the very hefty bill. Considering all the recriminations surrounding the Cup’s potential effects on the sporting landscape nationwide, I think that it’s a pretty fair question to ask why soccer isn’t contributing anything when they stand to benefit almost exclusively from Australia hosting the Cup.
    
    As for stadium upgrades, the Adelaide Oval redevelopment has been on the cards for a long time, and will go ahead with or without the World Cup. The AFL has a long-standing track record of funding the redevelopment of fields around the country, either directly by paying for them upfront (Docklands, Blacktown, Kardinia Park, Carrara etc) or indirectly funding them through acting as a sole or principal tenant (MGC, SCG, the Gabba, Subiaco etc.). It’s almost laughable to argue that the AFL isn’t directly or indirectly the major facilitator of stadium construction in Australia – much more so than soccer. It’s for that reason that most new stadiums, and certainly the larger ones built in Australia, are built in an oval configuration to accommodate Australian football.
    
    Reply
    - Mattay said | December 8th 2009 @ 7:31am | Report comment
      
      “As for stadium upgrades, the Adelaide Oval redevelopment has been on the cards for a long time, and will go ahead with or without the World Cup.”
      
      Not bloody likely. At the first whiff of the Adelaide Oval not being FIFA compliant, you watch the funds dry up.
      
      And it’s not just in Adelaide. All over the country, stadiums and public transport and other infrastructure will be upgraded for a 4 week football tournament, to then be used by AFL and Rugby for the future. Surely that’s got to be of some benefit.
      
      Reply
      - Gatto Nero said | December 8th 2009 @ 8:29am | Report comment
        
        The upgrades to Adelaide Oval and other venues would occur during the natural course of things, and from the media’s reporting in South Australia the redevelopment appears to be driven by local politics more than due to any perceived need to host World Cup matches. The latter is purely incidental in the economics of a $450 million upgrade when none of the profits go back to the venue operators. The fact is that AAMI stadium needs an upgrade to maintain a decent amenity, and South Australians the government and opposition are questioning whether that money could be better invested in a suitable, inner-city venue for their two most popular sports – footy and cricket. A state-of-the-art inner city venue makes sense for Adelaide, thus the move to put it in place, and Australian football just happens to be the principal tenant and the sport most likely to underwrite the costs in the long term.
        
        Infrastructure upgrades aren’t always necessary or desirable, however. FIFA requires 40,000 seat stadiums, and only the five mainland capitals can credibly argue the need for these over the medium-term. If Hobart, Darwin, Townsville or Canberra (all touted as host cities) build fields of that capacity, it will cost them quite a lot to maintain and they’ll never likely be filled. Arguably, they may even need to increase hotel capacities and other infrastructure to fill them for the Cup, which may not make economic sense if long-term demand is unsustainable.
        
        If I were to prioritize $4-8 billion in government spending over the next 10 years, I have no doubt that I could put that money to better use than hosting a World Cup. All major cities need upgraded transport options (and ones that don’t just shuttle to stadia), water infrastructure is failing and we’re trying to move to a greener energy grid. At the risk of sounding anti-soccer, what’s the problem with questioning what the money could be better spent upon?
        
        Reply
        
        Mattay said | December 8th 2009 @ 12:10pm | Report comment
        
        The stadium debate is all about politics, but it’s being driven by the need to have Adelaide as a World Cup venue. Under current conditions, we would not be a venue.
        
        The Adelaide Oval redevelopment is forecast to be complete by 2015. If we win the 2018 WC hosting rights, that leaves 3 years grace. And knowing how politics work (especially SA politics) we’ll need every minute of those 3 years. The clock is ticking. AFL fans have been crying out loud for an Adelaide based stadium. Port Power internally have been pleading to play at Adelaide Oval, although publicly have been bound to tow the SANFL line of “AAMI Stadium is just fine …”.
        
        Trust me, if Australia had no intention of bidding for a World Cup hosting right, this stadium debate wouldn’t be where it is now.
    - Corey said | December 8th 2009 @ 9:13am | Report comment
      
      Carrara stadium is being funded by Queesnlanders mate, not AFL- which ticks a lot of us off so don’t tell us the greatness of AFL paying for developing stadiums. No code in Australia has the money to afford a decent stadium. But I do agree that Soccer is getting a lot of help at the moment. To be honest, I can’t stand the game and don’t care if the WC comes here or not, but if it does than our winter codes shouldn’t stop, in fact they should continue and the rest of the world can see our games that we love so much. AFL would be seen by a lot of tourists who would learn a thing or two about it, Rugby League would show tourists that there is another form of Rugby which is loved by more people in our country and possibly some tourists might find it more attractive- or even attend some matches.
      
      Reply
      - Gatto Nero said | December 8th 2009 @ 10:34am | Report comment
        
        $126 million for Carrara in total. The Federal Government, Gold Coast City Council and the AFL are all contributing, alongside the Queensland Government.
        
        http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/sport/rudd-tips-in-36m-for-cararra/story-e6frg7mf-1225710484086
        
        No argument on your other points. I just wonder whether the total cost of holding it outweighs the benefits. There hasn’t been much discussion outside of its effect upon the football codes.
        
        Reply
  - Mushi said | December 8th 2009 @ 8:06am | Report comment
    
    I’d like to see that report as I know for a fact many of those large numbers in previous reports for previous events
    - are typically very bullish on the secondary spend
    - essentially assume that the goods and services would not have been otherwise consumed, this normally isn’t the intent of the report’s producers but more the miss use by the spruikers
    
    Reply
- Tifosi said | December 8th 2009 @ 4:38am | Report comment
  
  Black cat,
  
  FIFA make profits from tv rights. 3 billion or so.
  
  The tournament profit goes to the Local organising committee, in this case the FFA.
  
  Germany 2006 made a staggering 156 million euro profit or 253 million dollars.
  
  Reply
  - Gatto Nero said | December 8th 2009 @ 4:55am | Report comment
    
    Exactly. So both FIFA and FFA stand to profit handsomely from hosting the World Cup in Australia, yet neither have announced any financial support for the upgrading of infrastructure needed to host the event. They are quite happy to let Australian taxpayers foot the bill – even to the point where we are underwriting the bid process on FFA’s behalf. That is not fair, in my opinion.
    
    Commentators preach the benefits that Australia stands to gain from hosting the event, yet gloss over the particulars. Townsville may get a 40,000 seat stadium, despite locals (including the NRL’s Cowboys) stating that it is unnecessary and that they fear being left footing the maintenance bill for the future. No doubt the same argument can be made regarding venues in Darwin, Hobart and Canberra, even if the fields were configured to be multi-sport, which is doubtful. Australia may see a boost in tourism, but we of all countries should be aware of the difficulty in maintaining market share in that sector, as we’ve witnessed wild fluctuations in international tourism over the past 30 years. The Olympics were great in exposing Sydney overseas, but did they lead to a sustained increase in visitors? And has exposing Sydney been a positive overall – I know many would argue that the quality of life there has diminished over the past ten years.
    
    I’m not anti-soccer or anti-World Cup. I’m a realist who is, I believe sensibly, questioning the benefits of hosting the World Cup. Sure, it would placate our national insecurities about our place in the global community for a couple of years, but at enormous cost (considerably more than the Olympics) and potentially at the expense of sacrificing some of the things that make our country unique. These may be as minor as 8 weeks of the AFL or NRL seasons, or could be as vital as the quality of life in our cities should millions of people suddenly wish to emigrate to Australia. The answer to these issues is not for me to provide, but it should be part of a rigorous public debate to highlight the possible effects of hosting the Cup (which Demetriou has done), so that as a society we can then decide whether it is desirable to host. After that, get those who stand to benefit to foot the bill.
    
    Reply
    - andrewMc said | December 8th 2009 @ 9:12am | Report comment
      
      “And has exposing Sydney been a positive overall – I know many would argue that the quality of life there has diminished over the past ten years.”
      
      “be as vital as the quality of life in our cities should millions of people suddenly wish to emigrate to Australia”
      
      A wise man once said: sometimes it isn’t necessary to rebutt, you just repeat their arguement to make them look silly
      
      Reply
      - Gatto Nero said | December 8th 2009 @ 10:44am | Report comment
        
        Australia and Sydney aren’t the same entities Andrew, and in this case the tourist experience and the living experience can be very different, as attendees at the Olympics can probably attest. It’s well documented that things in Sydney haven’t been travelling well lately – the State Government there is in all sorts of trouble due to mismanagement, largely caused by a burgeoning population that they can’t provide infrastructure for. That’s not to say that other areas of NSW aren’t managed well by the same government, nor that tourists visiting Sydney for a week don’t think it’s a marvelous place. And moreover, the diminished quality of life in Sydney still leaves much of the world for dead.
        
        Expanded, I simply argue that the World Cup would draw a lot of attention to Australia, and we aren’t well informed about the consequences other than a substantial medium-term cost to taxpayers and a short-term bump in tourism numbers. The event in of itself may be fun, but diverting tax dollars from other needy areas may lower our standard of living in the long term. I personally don’t believe increased immigration to be a good thing, thus I stand by my statement above. We are struggling to provide water for our current population and decrease detrimental harm to the Australian environment at current rates of growth, so I am cautious about how we would manage if that were to increase following a World Cup. Unfortunately, these issues aren’t being discussed in regards to the bid – what are the full costs, does Australia want the exposure and could the money be better spent elsewhere?
        
        Reply
  - Wooded said | December 8th 2009 @ 8:45pm | Report comment
    
    thats not really alot of money… you spend 5 billion to make 250 mil??? i
    
    Reply
- Zack said | December 8th 2009 @ 11:33am | Report comment
  
  Here in Perth the WAFL only has to pay $1 for leasing Subiaco Oval. The WA tax payers have to foot the bill for West Coast and Freo.
  
  Reply
  - AC said | December 8th 2009 @ 3:49pm | Report comment
    
    A small price to pay for the privilege of playing the Victorian/Melbourne game
    
    Reply
  - bever fever said | December 8th 2009 @ 4:03pm | Report comment
    
    Would be interested in seeing a link to this Zack.
    
    Reply
    - Zack said | December 8th 2009 @ 6:33pm | Report comment
      
      http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Subiaco-Oval
      
      Look under Redevelopment.
      The WAFC did not want a new stadium in Perth becasue they would lose out on this generous deal. WAFC is the reason we don’t have a new Stadium in Perth.
      
      Reply
      - Midfielder said | December 8th 2009 @ 6:41pm | Report comment
        
        good pick up.
        
        Reply
- redcup said | December 9th 2009 @ 4:39pm | Report comment
  
  Providing Australia does NOTHING – ( no tourism etc ), the TV rights alone will be more than the AFL could garner in years.
  The thing I find amazing ( actually given all the negative stories that our parochial media spews forth, i am not surprised really ), is that AFL and NRL spectators actually think their games are even in the same league.
  It’s just ike a fish in a puddle while the ocean is over the road yet you guys don’t even realise how big it is or where it is!
  
  Reply
  - Jaredsbro said | December 10th 2009 @ 1:18pm | Report comment
    
    Recup there is such a thing as whoring yourself to the widest and wildest number of clients, or is Prostitution illegal where you live Just becuase the World Cares (usually because Soccer’s the only sport of the people in virtually all countries) doesn’t mean Australia which can legitimately claim to possess a unique sporting landscape without being xenophobic (or I prefer to call it loyal to our tried and true way of doing things!) should be fanatical about an event which has done more for Globalisation than even McDonald’s
    
    Reply
- Jaredsbro said | December 10th 2009 @ 1:01pm | Report comment
  
  Hmm I’m not sure Australia’s like the US there Adrian. Yes Race and Sport are two rhetorics which have become increasingly intertwined but the sporting reality in the states is quite different from Australia (in the main) tho as AFL’s heartland really is in Melbourne (and as I reckon Melbourne is the closest thing Australian sports has to an American equivalent) maybe the AFL is more at fault here than anything. They are unwilling to be pluralistic about how and in what way ‘football’ is played in spite of the fact that in other parts of the country three codes at least tend to coalesce (but you wont read it in the papers ) And I wont even blame Demetriou here, another problem is as many Roarers have come to is that the AFL appeals to a very similar audience/niche as Soccer.
  
  And even worse for any chance of reconciliation is the fact that the AFL views itself as a sport for everybody, every race, everything good about sport. Problem with that is that it doesn’t allow for a much-needed and much more varied sporting ecosystem than many AFL zealots will tolerate. Simply put the AFL doesn’t need to enage with Soccer and until it does there’s little hope of this melancholic rhetoric ending…
  
  Reply
andrewMc said | December 8th 2009 @ 4:23am | Report comment

Fantastic article! Keep it up!

Reply
Tifosi said | December 8th 2009 @ 4:31am | Report comment

Adrian,

I dont think its as bad as you portray. Growing up in an italian household I understood that racism did exist in this country and yes, some australians still look at soccer as wogball, but the majority i believe have moved on from those days.

The majority can see the benefit of the world cup.

Interestingly the poll from the herald sun website, not that it is entirely scientific would suggest Aussies are generally ok with it.

Would you accept scrapping the AFL season to ensure Australia hosts the soccer World Cup?

Yes
45.88% (496 votes)

No
54.12% (585 votes)

Total votes: 1081

The fact that its not 100% to 0% tells me something.

But as i mentioned before Australia shouldnt have attempted to host this world cup. We dont have the capacity to undertake this event. Yet.

Reply
Gatto Nero said | December 8th 2009 @ 5:09am | Report comment

Another thing, Adrian – you make your point well in the article, before letting yourself down greatly in your closing sentence. Why spend so many paragraphs imploring Aussies to be more supportive of the bid and to eliminate racial overtones in the World Cup debate, but then add a xenophobic and offensive comment about Americans being introverted and ignorant? It must be easy to lump all 350 million citizens of the world’s most multicultural society into the one basket.

Reply
Kurt said | December 8th 2009 @ 5:16am | Report comment

Adrian – ok, so you’ve quoted a few muppets from the Herald Sun website and drawn some broad conclusions about Australian society. Could we not equally quote those whose hatred for AFL and desire to damage & denigrate it at every turn and draw some conclusions about the profound cultural cringe that leads us to beg for scraps from the FIFA table in the desperate hope of receiving the approval of our betters?

The fact is there has been no serious debate about the benefits of hosting the WC, much as there was none surrounding the Olympics bid all those years ago. People just mindlessly quote the ‘independent analysis commissioned by the bid (without for once noting the profound irony of those words) and accuse anyone who questions these benefits of being “un-Australian”. The economic benefits arguments are so profoundly flawed and rely on such rubbery assumptions and creative accountancy that they are laughed at by any serious economists. And yet they are mouthed unthinkingly by those who rightly question other aspects of government policy such as the proposed ETS.

And as for compromise – I agree that this is required. But so far we have the FFA basically telling the AFL and NRL they will have to vacate their main stadiums for 2 months in the middle of their seasons! This represents compromise? As Gatto says above, given that the FFA and FIFA will be the primary beneficiaries of a WC, how about they dip into their pockets and build their own dedicated infrastructure rather than relying on what by their own admission are inappropriate ovals.

And as current resident of the US, I can only add my condemnation of your nasty little anti-American comment at the end. Ignorant, prejudiced and plain wrong.

Reply
- Gatto Nero said | December 8th 2009 @ 5:49am | Report comment
  
  Great comment – where are you based, Kurt?
  
  Reply
  - Kurt said | December 8th 2009 @ 6:20am | Report comment
    
    Raleigh NC. As for being insular and ignorant, Raleigh has teams competing in regional or national competitions in soccer, rugby, ice hockey, lacrosse, baseball, softball, american football, basketball, cricket and, wait for it, aussie rules (no that’s not a joke!). Probably as much sporting diversity as anywhere on the planet.
    
    Reply
    - Gatto Nero said | December 8th 2009 @ 8:37am | Report comment
      
      I love Raleigh and the Carolinas generally – you’re lucky to live in a place with great access to the mountains, the coast and a couple of big centres in DC and Atlanta. I escaped the cold last northern winter by seeing the south-east and then driving south to the Keys. And I’m familiar with the Tigers in the footy there – they’re pretty keen to go up against the likes of Baltimore-Washington and New York. Good on ‘em!
      
      Reply
    - Jaredsbro said | December 10th 2009 @ 1:26pm | Report comment
      
      Go the Panthers KAY
      
      Reply
Beast-A-Tron said | December 8th 2009 @ 5:17am | Report comment

“With each such statement from Demetriou or the like, Australia’s World Cup bid – which was always going to be a challenge – appears even more doomed.”

He has committed to helping the WC bid, just not at the expense of an AFL season. Stating the obvious reality does not make him intransigent.

You hit the nail on the head before – “a question no one wanted to discuss”. Perhaps afraid of the answer? Maybe this explains FFA’s lack of transparency leading into the bid submission, maybe they thought the devil in the detail could be submerged until after the bid was secured. It would be very naive of them if that was the case.

“Where has the enthusiasm that greeted the build up to the Sydney Olympics gone?”

The Olympics was not one sport, but several sports appealing to a broad range of consumers. Not only that, the Olympics is something Australia can actually win at, maybe not the overall tally, but specific events we clearly dominated (e.g. Cycling & Swimming). The IOC, unlike FIFA, does not entertain anti-competitive clauses in the hosting requirements. Further to this point, the Olympics are a collection of amateur sports, many reliant on government funding. Meanwhile Soccer here is a rich professional sport, FIFA is a rich, professional governing sports body and yet the latter sport seems concerned with shutting out competition. These factors combined may explain the difference in enthusiasm between the two events, or maybe I’m simply reading too much into it.

“Sadly, we have become the new America: introverted, overly protective and ignorant.”

Sadly I did not read this line first, seeing as it compromises your journalistic integrity. The USA is a flawed nation, but a great nation nonetheless. Such generalisations are reflective of the dreaded tall poppy syndrome: here comes another yank basher.

Reply
- Punter said | December 8th 2009 @ 6:28am | Report comment
  
  So based on the fact that the WC football is only one sport & a sport you don’t like is justification for us not to hold the event.
  You & many other anti- soccer people focus on this FIFA thing forgetting there are millions of Australians who would want to hold the event in Australian just because they like the game & that it’s the biggest sporting event in the world. Forget FIFA.
  You are jumping up & down without facts, based on some silly comment from the AFL CEO who was upset that football was on the front pages of all major papers on Sunday.
  
  Reply
  - Punter said | December 8th 2009 @ 6:29am | Report comment
    
    We know who are the ignorant ones.
    
    Reply
  - Gatto Nero said | December 8th 2009 @ 6:40am | Report comment
    
    Typical comment from a pro-soccer type, lacking substantive rebuttals of the concerns raised or informed arguments on why we SHOULD host the World Cup. We’re not all anti-soccer partisans in this debate, some of us actually want to be convinced via rational argument that hosting the World Cup would be a good thing. It’s not as if the tournament, in of itself, is inherently a positive event.
    
    Reply
    - Punter said | December 8th 2009 @ 6:50am | Report comment
      
      I’m blown over by your informed arguments on why we SHOULD NOT host the World Cup.
      
      1. CEO upset that a football draw drew so much attention imagine what the actual WC will do, imagine what a WC in this country will do.
      2. CEO know no facts & just shooting from the hip.
      3. CEO upset that during the Sydney Telstra 500 (V8s) at Hombush, no-one recognised Kevin Sheedy at the AFL tent (need to buy another Karmichael Hunt).
      4. CEO is fearful that while they have FFA covered & can bully them, those big boys from FIFA are a different matter.
      5. CEO hoping comments will make a ripple, which it didn’t in Sydney, would people in Sydney worry that the Swans or the other side be not playing for a season, NO.
      6. Pips favourite, FIFA is bad.
      7. CEO upset that this is a worldwide event & Collingwood was not invited to play.
      
      Reply
      - Kurt said | December 8th 2009 @ 7:13am | Report comment
        
        You forgot:
        
        Will cost vast amounts of money for questionable economic benefits
        
        Reply
      - Pippinu said | December 8th 2009 @ 7:16am | Report comment
        
        Are we talking about the incompetent and devious Buckley here?
        
        Reply
      - Gatto Nero said | December 8th 2009 @ 8:07am | Report comment
        
        Actually, I would argue that Australia will invest considerable taxpayer dollars for infrastructure that a) we can’t afford to build in the first place, and b) is unlikely to be used once the circus has left town.
        
        Add to that the questionable figures being put forward regarding the economic boost from international travel to the event, and the economics behind the bid – arguably the reason we’re bidding at all – are yet to satisfy me. Estimated tourism revenues are based on the Germany World Cup, which aren’t applicable to Australia as we are so far away from a majority of the world’s population. Most of Asia has a passing interest in soccer at best (no interest for the majority of Indians and Chinese, I dare say), and most can’t afford to travel abroad. South Africa is more akin to our situation, and from all reports I’ve read of their experience, they will be in debt for a long time after the World Cup moves on.
        
        Apologies if I disagree that the World Cup is a negative because it may leave a long-lasting legacy of debt and unnecessary infrastructure strewn across our sunburned country. I suppose higher taxes and a legacy of neglected schools and hospitals isn’t much to pay for a four week soccer tournament that eases our national cultural cringe.
        
        Reply
      - Gary said | December 8th 2009 @ 11:20am | Report comment
        
        CEO upset that Collingwood might have to travel interstate on a regular basis like the other teams.
        
        Reply
      - Jaredsbro said | December 10th 2009 @ 1:39pm | Report comment
        
        Yip read my comments below Punter and #6 starts to take on some more logical sense. Why would FIFA actually care about other codes, few other codes ever care about other codes (just RL with regard to AFL’s expansion plans, or rather establishment of a soon-to-be rundown AFL front office in Blacktown)
        
        I’m not anti-Soccer but Soccer is anti-Australian as far as I can see even tho it is a very large code in this country in terms of participation rates. FIFA doesn’t care and so FIFA really has to convince the other codes particularly that there’s room to share. I don’t think FIFA believes this, thus they’ll treat Australia’s cultural uniqueness with the contempt they did the US. The FFA have said it but they’re always under risk of getting death-threats from out somewhere in the bush when an old fashioned father finds his kid playing Soccer and wonders how long his man-juice will hold out…
        
        Reply
        
        Punter said | December 10th 2009 @ 1:44pm | Report comment
        
        Ok Jaredsbro, I take your word for it, ‘Soccer is anti-Australian’. I will speak to my wife & we shall both renouce it.
- Beast-A-Tron said | December 8th 2009 @ 6:46am | Report comment
  
  “So based on the fact that the WC football is only one sport & a sport you don’t like is justification for us not to hold the event.”
  
  Those are your words, not mine. My personal position is that Australia should host a WC, but not at the expense of our sporting paradigm. You probably won’t believe me, but I don’t dislike soccer, I do however take issue with its ‘might is right’ attitude; very imperialistic.
  
  For me the best scenario possible would be all four professional codes hosting games simultaneously in several cities across Australia, how grand would that be? But FIFA takes issue with competing against ‘major sporting events’. Funny how the Olympics, being amateur and all, manages to get by without similar nonsense.
  
  Sport is about competition and choice, something I feel FIFA does not embody.
  
  “You are jumping up & down without facts, based on some silly comment from the AFL CEO who was upset that football was on the front pages of all major papers on Sunday.”
  
  His comments are based off FIFA requirements for hosting a world cup.
  
  That “biggest sporting event in the world” rhetoric doesn’t cut it with me. Over the years U2 and Coldplay have been lauded as ‘biggest band in the world’; doesn’t stop me from thinking they’re crap garbage bands. From “bigger” we can attempt to argue the economic merits but so far the FFA & FIFA haven’t provided much detail to allow such debate.
  
  Reply
  - Punter said | December 8th 2009 @ 6:56am | Report comment
    
    Only one person has mentioned that if will affect the whole season & he was not a football/soccer person. Why did he come out on Monday when everyone else was talking WC draw?
    Why is this a bigger issue in Melbourne than Sydney?
    There is no weapons of mass destructions, let’s wait & see what is required by FIFA before we proclaim war.
    
    Reply
    - Beast-A-Tron said | December 8th 2009 @ 7:08am | Report comment
      
      Why did he come out on Monday? Maybe because the bid deadline is approaching this Friday and still bugger all is known about it. This is not war, this is business. Decisions involving millions of dollars, made by people earning more than you or I, are not made flippantly nor without due consideration. The most difficult aspect to satisfy in bringing the WC to Australia is not ideological, it is financial. It would suit the FFA better though to masquerade under the ideological victim banner.
      
      Commercial contracts for the MCG & AFL run past 2040 – this reflects the long term planning that goes into managing the MCG. Why can you not grasp the financial complexities at play here?
      
      Reply
      - Pippinu said | December 8th 2009 @ 7:11am | Report comment
        
        Beast
        it’s useless talking economics, finance and commercial law here on the Roar – non-AFL people have trouble grasping it.
        
        Reply
        
        Robbos said | December 8th 2009 @ 7:53am | Report comment
        
        How about opportunities to now expand the AFL to the countries that they are trying to expand to.
        How cool while soccer is played in Australia we are playing AFL in Sth Africa, New Zealand, China & the US.
        
        Gatto Nero said | December 8th 2009 @ 8:40am | Report comment
        
        Actually Pip, I think it’s critical. Leave the Herald-Sun and Bigfooty for partisan comments, but we do need a place for critical debate of issues, and this post alone shows that there are a core group of articulate and intelligent posters on the Roar that are capable of promoting debate.
        
        It’s just unfortunate that the same quality of debate isn’t occurring in the mainstream press, whose paid commentators have the time and resources to better inform the dialogue.
  - mahony said | December 8th 2009 @ 8:31am | Report comment
    
    It is not my “sporting paradigm” mate I’ll give you the tip. Don’t speak for me or the many people like me. The Murdoch press and the people who consume their ‘product’ don’t speak for me either. They bring great shame on our society and call into question our humanity with every villifying, fear induced statement. In my sporting and cultural paradigm, real sporting heros take on the world’s best at the world’s code and rise like titans to put Australia where it belongs – at the centre of civil society and on top of the sporting ladder.
    
    Reply
    - Gatto Nero said | December 8th 2009 @ 8:48am | Report comment
      
      Actually Mahony, a realist would argue that the sporting paradigm in Australia is what it is. The most popular sports are those with the biggest market share, and there will always be dynamism in the system and minority viewpoints. But the reality is that lots of people enjoy footy and rugby league – I think that statement is as undeniable as any. It’s natural that those who take little interest in soccer may not be overly enthused about the prospect of hosting the Cup, and you do nothing to further the debate by calling them shameful, lacking in humanity or by implying cowardice on their part.
      
      Reply
    - Beast-A-Tron said | December 8th 2009 @ 9:29am | Report comment
      
      Not your sporting paradigm? Well that is a shame because freedom of choice and healthy competition are two aspects that make sport great, you’re missing out on a lot! But in all seriousness many Australians seem to agree with this sentiment, as is confirmed by the the sporting status quo: four professional codes of football. I struggle to list any other countries with such diversified sporting interests.
      
      As Gatto suggests, the paradigm is as is. If you do not understand, look it up in the dictionary.
      
      Reply
      - Punter said | December 8th 2009 @ 9:43am | Report comment
        
        The US has American Football, Basketball, Baseball & Ice Hockey as their major sports, plus football, plus they are quite good at many individual sports like Skiing, Athletics, Swimming, Golf Tennis.
        Canada has all these sports as well.
        In England they have the same sports as Australia bar AFL
        In Ireland they have the same sports as Australia bar Rugby League (AFL- Gaelic football is not the same, but you get the gist).
        
        That is the top of my head, I’m sure that I could cover many more countries with a diversity in their countries.
        
        Reply
        
        Beast-A-Tron said | December 8th 2009 @ 10:05am | Report comment
        
        You know another country supporting four professional codes of football?
        
        But I do agree with you on the USA, they have so many sports there to choose from and look who ended up on top. Interestingly FIFA did not demand other US sports shut down (mixture of off-season and lack of financial clout in USA) and it all worked out in the end. This could be Australia.
        
        Jaredsbro said | December 10th 2009 @ 1:50pm | Report comment
        
        Yeah it’s one thing to be sporting (Melbourne has this in spades) but when it comes to having a Brisbane (and Sydney and soon-to-be Melbourne) with four footy codes competing in the same market (not just two) and you might appreciate just how hard it is to find any coherence about how football should be played. Sports has always been a multiple thing (as there seems to always have been some kind of kicking game and some kind of bat/ball game in most cultures). Football still struggles to be seen in the same light, but maybe by forcing FIFA to come to terms with this, maybe they’ll do the rest of the work for us
        
        As you can see I’m just a little bit concerned that FIFA is screwing the world by its protectionist imperialism’s all
    - MyGeneration said | December 8th 2009 @ 6:53pm | Report comment
      
      I hope questioning the details of the World Cup bid is not calling into question our humanity. I think Australia is already a pretty civil society, and I don’t think the World Cup bid matters one way or the other towards that.
      
      Reply
  - Jeb said | December 8th 2009 @ 8:38am | Report comment
    
    Beast-A-Thon:
    
    I don’t think anyone will believe that you don’t dislike soccer when you imply that the world cup is crap garbage.
    
    Reply
    - Beast-A-Tron said | December 8th 2009 @ 9:39am | Report comment
      
      No, U2 and Coldplay are crab garbage, and so is the reasoning that size should discount all rational analysis. Superior international market share is used as an argument that Australia should host the WC to detriment of its current sporting landscape, and I do not hold to such fallacious reasoning.
      
      Reply
      - Jeb said | December 8th 2009 @ 2:37pm | Report comment
        
        Beast-A-Tron:
        
        For someone who is so keen on rational analysis you seem to hold your own opinion very highly. To say – “That ‘biggest sporting event in the world’ rhetoric doesn’t cut it with me.” is kind of stupid when the point isn’t up for debate. It takes a lot of arrogance to say that fact isn’t good enough for you.
        
        Re the U2 and coldplay implication, I suggest you learn how to use analogy if you aren’t going to stick by what you say.
        
        Reply
        
        Pippinu said | December 8th 2009 @ 2:45pm | Report comment
        
        But the point remains that “biggest show on Earth” isn’t sufficient to over ride existing contractual agreements.
        
        Ken said | December 8th 2009 @ 6:52pm | Report comment
        
        I agree with the beast that the Soccer WC being The ‘biggest show on earth’ isn’t really relevant to the argument. Popularity has a lot more to do with exposure than relative merits – how else do you define the career of Britney Spears?
        
        However it’s not event an absolute fact that it’s the largest, I imagine that the boast is carried by international average TV audience – an impressive achievement but not the only possible, or even most obvious, measurement of a sports events size. The olympics have far more countries, sports, playing time, athletes – plenty of other justifications for biggest sports event on the planet
        
        Jaredsbro said | December 10th 2009 @ 1:56pm | Report comment
        
        Ken, I’m glad you put the effort in as always But you must surely know by now that Soccer’s popularity worldwide is nothing more than FIFA banking on its virtual irresistibility. I actually don’t think the intrinsics of sport have crossed FIFA’s mind, they only function as a Capitalist business which means that as far as they’re concerned as long as they keep growing their accounts they’re on the right rack. The problem is Soccer’s always been number one and probably won’t ever have to fight another sport.
        
        The Olympics on the otherhand. Their soul is still interested in the intrinsics but has unfortunately realised the need of entertainment to clothe their promotion of sporting excellence.
      - Beast-A-Tron said | December 8th 2009 @ 6:43pm | Report comment
        
        “That ‘biggest sporting event in the world’ rhetoric doesn’t cut it with me.” is kind of stupid when the point isn’t up for debate.
        
        Perhaps I have not articulated my point well. I’m not saying that point isn’t up for debate, but a purely ‘bigger is better’ argument, without further elaboration, is wrong. The issue is more complex than just ‘it is the biggest sporting event, it will bring us $$$’.
        
        I hope that clarifies the matter.
        
        Reply
        
        Jeb said | December 8th 2009 @ 10:09pm | Report comment
        
        Fair enough, I’ve always understood your point. Just didn’t like the implication that the world cup is crap. Unintentional perhaps – refer previous comment re analogy.
        
        Ken – just for you, can we say that the world cup is the biggest sporting event in the world in terms of interest? Not in terms of the number of countries competing, the number of athletes, sports or playing time. btw the masters games is way bigger than the olympics with some of your criteria. But the wc wins if the criteria is interest. It is the event more people watch and care about.
- Jaredsbro said | December 10th 2009 @ 1:32pm | Report comment
  
  Yes…Yes…and thank the Lord Almight on High….YES! This has been my point all along, FIFA pretends to be a sport of the people but thru quite typical Capitalistic tendencies has reduced all competition not just before, during and after the WC but across virtually the whole world, for virtually an entire century (in the UK much longer I might add). The payment of players who are supposedly WC winning-class (can’t see Ronaldo actually getting to the knockout rounds this time round after the draw on the weekend) or perhaps more poignantly the countenance of paying players more money than they can clearly recoup during the player’s career at the club is indicative of the monomaniacal approach by FIFA: make the whole world your friend so those few who resist are made out to be laughing stocks…hang on a minute didn’t I see that in that program V last night
  
  Reply
Pippinu said | December 8th 2009 @ 6:19am | Report comment

Buckley and the FFA have lied every step of the way – why didn’t they have the balls to come out from the start and say what it would mean?

Adrian quotes bloggers on the HS, but I can quote respected journalists in a broadsheet this morning, Ray Gatt:
“Nah, this is just the AFL boss’s idea of stirring up the rabid masses in the aerial ping pong game. ”

Good on to Demetriou for telling it the way it is.

Get your act together FFA, stop expecting everyone else to do the job for you – or creep back to your hole.

Reply
- Punter said | December 8th 2009 @ 6:31am | Report comment
  
  CEO of AFL is just upset & all of a sudden there is weapons of mass destructions at both FIFA & FFA. We must bring them down. hahaha, what a joke.
  
  Reply
  - The Link said | December 8th 2009 @ 8:02am | Report comment
    
    How is saying the season needs to be cancelled calling it how it is?
    
    He’s trying to stir up the base. No denying the FFA may be playing games, but don’t claim AD isn’t in the gutter with them.
    
    Reply
MyGeneration said | December 8th 2009 @ 6:34am | Report comment

This is a fear-and-loathing article about fear-and-loathing. The black-and-white put down of Americans comes two sentences after a plea for “logic, compromise and acceptance” and not to resort to black or white absolutes.

Unfortunately that contradiction sums up the articles faults, and a lot of the current rhetoric around the WC bid on both sides. Until there is more clarity around what hosting the WC will actually mean in terms of practical necessities (What are the real benefits? What are the other codes really expected to sacrifice, and for how long?), this will be the hysterical tone of the debate.

Expect a few hundred new and contradictory definitions of the term “UnAustralian”.

Reply
- Gatto Nero said | December 8th 2009 @ 6:46am | Report comment
  
  Another salient post. Now, if only one of more mainstream media commentators would begin asking these questions – what benefits come from hosting the World Cup, who do they benefit, what negatives are effected and what will be the consequences – then we can move on to an open public debate about whether it’s a worthwhile pursuit and which agencies should foot the bill. Unfortunately, those who presumably are in a position to answer those questions (FFA and FIFA) haven’t, yet, been forthcoming with much information. If they don’t know the answers, perhaps Australia shouldn’t be bidding. If they do and are holding back in the hope that the storm will blow over, then shame on them.
  
  Reply
  - Pippinu said | December 8th 2009 @ 6:58am | Report comment
    
    Gatto
    Politicians want circuses for political grandstanding – it’s in their interests to hide all open debate on such a subject because there are no economic benefits.
    
    The formula is straightforward enough:
    
    1. the taxpayer forks out billions upon billions of dollars
    2. FIFA pockets the economic rent
    3. Politicians get photographed (but still look like the gits they really are)
    
    Reply
    - Gatto Nero said | December 8th 2009 @ 8:55am | Report comment
      
      A cynical view, but pretty accurate Pip. Still, it’s our duty to question the imposition of big events like the World Cup if nobody else is doing so. It’s a pretty big photo op, but it comes at an enormous cost.
      
      Reply
crashy said | December 8th 2009 @ 6:38am | Report comment

Soccer isn’t my preferred code but if all this infighting and self interest continues, we have Buckleys ( great pun) of getting in world football tournament.
The AFL is a wonderful product but I think it is really starting to show its insecurity over its place in the world pecking order of football codes.
Very interesting to watch but this will hardly go to our advantage.
The 2003 Rugby world cup generated about 50 mil for the ARU. Imagine what the FFA stands to make…I ca see why the AFL is scared.

Reply
- Pippinu said | December 8th 2009 @ 6:56am | Report comment
  
  crashy
  
  I’m not sure what will be left in the kitty for the FFA after the AFL is handsomely compensated (or is the taxpayer meant to pick up that bill as well?)
  
  Reply
- Gatto Nero said | December 8th 2009 @ 7:09am | Report comment
  
  Hardly scared. The interesting aspect to all of this is that three weeks ago I could have sworn it was footy and league going head-to-head, and the media will make every conflict of interest into another salvo in the ‘war’ that’s raging.
  
  I would say Demetriou would be derelict in his responsibility if he didn’t declare to the media that the World Cup is a threat to AFL revenues. It is, insomuch that it would require an adjustment of the AFL’s business plan for whichever year it is held, and revenues would likely suffer because it would drain public spending on sport, offer sponsors an alternative and tie up many preferred venues. Too many muppets confuse this posturing as either a personal or organisational insecurity on Demetriou or the AFL’s part, as if they are scared of soccer, when in fact it’s just Demetriou’s job – one that he is paid handsomely to do – to defend the interests of the AFL. Ironically, up in Sydney the NRL are furiously trying to restructure to adopt an AFL-model commission to better govern their sport, and soccer has lured Demetriou’s former protege Ben Buckly to administer that code. The AFL has the best track record in Australia for sports management, and the fact that they’ve turned the World Cup draw into a week’s worth of discussion about an AFL season 9 or 13 years away is testament to that.
  
  Reply
  - Barking Glider said | December 8th 2009 @ 8:01am | Report comment
    
    They are adopting a model based on the NFL, not AFL. Rarely reported correctly.
    
    Reply
    - Gatto Nero said | December 8th 2009 @ 9:07am | Report comment
      
      Yes, but the NFL model was adopted by the AFL, so both commissions will be of the same provenance.
      
      Reply
  - Jaredsbro said | December 10th 2009 @ 2:12pm | Report comment
    
    GN the key here is that the AFL is a publicity machine. Nothing more. The NFL does it. So does the EPL (with the added benefit of claiming the world actually cares about its four-way competition (throw in Hotspur this year of course). All great leagues do it, but it doesn’t mean the AFL will actually gain anything from this bid (or even the WC itself if the bid is won). Tell me why can’t the AFL break/bend the rules and promote Soccer, before and during the WC (and by before I mean starting around about now)…and conversely why is the NRL not doing the same, even tho Soccer and RL have alot closer relationship?
    
    Reply
Pippinu said | December 8th 2009 @ 6:42am | Report comment

To quote Richard Hinds from this morning’s SMH:

“Information from the FFA has been, the AFL claims, confusing, contradictory or simply non-existent.

This has left the AFL wondering if a) The FFA’s planning is so poor it is still uncertain about key points such as where and when the AFL and NRL would be allowed to play games during the World Cup or b) The FFA is being deliberately obtuse in the belief the Federal Government will legislate to force other codes and ground operators to comply to any orders should the bid succeed. ”

I would suggest it’s a bit of both a and b.

This is what happens when government hands out money to organisations with zero accountability.

Reply
- Punter said | December 8th 2009 @ 7:01am | Report comment
  
  Another quote from Richard Hinds on the same article;
  
  ‘the AFL and NRL would be negligent if they did not consider the World Cup a Trojan Horse from which an aggressive enemy will spring’
  
  Now where have I heard that before, oh yeah those overzealous Rugby League writers about the AFL coming into Western Sydney.
  Funny how the AFL can dish it out but can’t take it.
  
  Reply
  - Pippinu said | December 8th 2009 @ 7:07am | Report comment
    
    Punter
    
    It’s an idiotic analogy.
    
    The AFL is being asked to forego its contracted rights to the MCG.
    
    Etihad has already told the FFA and FIFA to jump because they would lose too much money (it would be the same for the MCG).
    
    Buckley is already talking about legislated action to over ride commercial agreements, i.e. a bit like the governmetn taking over your house for 4 months and asking you to live somewhere else.
    
    There is an issue here of property rights.
    
    And this is why I keep referring to a foreign, unelected corrupt governing body.
    
    Reply
    - Punter said | December 8th 2009 @ 7:22am | Report comment
      
      Pip,
      
      If you think about it, it’s not an idiotic analogy.
      
      The Blacktown city council are closing down soccer/Rugby ovals for AFL ovals, why beacause the AFL are paying the Council.
      Where are the kids coming from, oh yes the free membership & goodies bag they get.
      
      Now you call that marketing & I tend to agree.
      
      Now the WC is all about marketing.
      
      Reply
      - Pippinu said | December 8th 2009 @ 7:29am | Report comment
        
        Punter
        get your facts straight – it’s a cricket ground.
        
        Reply
      - Gatto Nero said | December 8th 2009 @ 7:34am | Report comment
        
        Another unfounded, silly comment. Councils reallocate fields due to the dynamic nature of demand. You have more kids or adults wishing to play footy? They get in touch with councillors or city executives, who then reallocate underused fields. There’s no conspiracy involved, it’s just demand-based and happens all the time. It’s no different than South Melbourne’s old oval being reallocated to soccer once they moved north.
        
        Contrast that with commercial venues with long-standing user agreements in place. Pip’s analogy of the government legislating to evict you from your house actually is accurate, and quite scary if you think about it from that viewpoint. It’s not about marketing, it’s about property and commercial law which, unfortunately for overzealous soccer partisans, presently protects the rights of the existing venue tenants.
        
        Reply
        
        Barking Glider said | December 8th 2009 @ 8:04am | Report comment
        
        Come off it. The Blacktown community haven’t demanded GWS come to town, nor that fields for Aussie rules be provided. It is the other way around. The AFL are using a build it and they will come approach. Which requires plenty of money, show bags, and lots of sweet talking of government officials.
        
        Gatto Nero said | December 8th 2009 @ 9:22am | Report comment
        
        Not much different than the rectangular stadium in Melbourne, except that the AFL invested funds into the Blacktown facility, alongside Cricket Australia. The Blacktown facility are besides the point in this case, in that it is being built on vacant land, and $5 million of the investment is earmarked for adjoining soccer facilities.
        
        The local Australian football leagues in Toronto and Denmark recently had ovals constructed on former baseball and soccer fields. Warrnambool (a footy-obsessed cradle) recently built rugby and soccer fields on former Aussie rules grounds. It’s all part of changing sports dynamics and happens on a daily basis. It’s nothing for anyone to be threatened about.
        
        macavity said | December 8th 2009 @ 9:49am | Report comment
        
        plenty different to the rectangular field in Melb. For one, two well established and well supported teams will be based there, plus the new rugby team. For two, there is no equivalent facility in Melb. For three, it isn’t just a training ground…
        
        Gatto Nero said | December 8th 2009 @ 10:53am | Report comment
        
        Team GWS are already based out of the Blacktown facility, macavity, and both the AFL and Cricket Australia have committed to holding matches and basing their programs out of the facility. It’s not really in an area covered by existing infrastructure, as it wouldn’t have been built if that were the case. In this regard Sydney is viewed as a network of neighbouring urban centres rather than as a single metropolis. As far as the partners see the investment, I doubt it is any different to Melbourne’s rectangular stadium.
      - bever fever said | December 8th 2009 @ 4:05pm | Report comment
        
        Lies, lies and more lies, Blacktown have never closed down rugby, soccer grounds for the AFL.
        
        Reply
        
        Dogs Of War said | December 10th 2009 @ 5:29pm | Report comment
        
        Yeah, but the money the council has put into the stadium has come at the expense of the local grounds that are run down in the area and are used heavily. Maybe you should drive around Blacktown some time.
    - Beast-A-Tron said | December 8th 2009 @ 7:39am | Report comment
      
      “Buckley is already talking about legislated action to over ride commercial agreements”
      
      I’m not quite sure what Buckley expects the government to do other than compulsory acquisition of the land, which not be wise because:
      
      1a. It would be a highly politicised decision for the government to resort to constitutional means in order to undermine commercial contracts of a national sport; leading to
      
      1b. The Australian Government going in to bat for soccer at the High Court, which is where it will end up if this path is pursued (Section 51(xxxi) outlines the powers conferred and compensation required).
      
      Somehow I don’t see ‘The Castle 2′ revolving around the FIFA WC.
      
      Reply
      - Pippinu said | December 8th 2009 @ 7:42am | Report comment
        
        But this is exactly the scenario that is about to be played out – unless the compensation is big enough to satisfy the AFL to start with – Etihad have already said no to the FFA – they are a privately owned stadium – so compulsory acquisition is definitely on the agenda.
        
        Reply
        
        Beast-A-Tron said | December 8th 2009 @ 8:03am | Report comment
        
        FFA hasn’t got the balls to go to the High Court.
        
        Barking Glider said | December 8th 2009 @ 8:07am | Report comment
        
        Any Federal government that legislates against sports being allowed to undertake their normal competitions is more than doomed. They never even banned sport during WW1 or WW2, despite the obvious argument that sport should stop. Taking away people’s sport is political suicide.
        
        AndyRoo said | December 8th 2009 @ 8:56am | Report comment
        
        Pip, where has this been mentioned from Buckley?
        
        I want the world cup more than most so I can attend but fairs fair and legislating is over stepping the mark.
        
        I guess Buckley does have a history fo poor comunication (the Canberra a league bid comes to mind).
        
        Anyway the NRL have been handed a proposed schedule so I am sure that will be leaked to the newspapers in full soon enough
        
        Redb said | December 8th 2009 @ 9:09am | Report comment
        
        If they legislate they lose. Governments arent that stupid its a sporting event not conscription.
        
        AndyRoo said | December 8th 2009 @ 9:21am | Report comment
        
        The way Richard Hinds is talking it sounds like he wants the Government to legislate rather than the AFL play on while the world cup is on.
        
        I would consider it a massive failure on behalf of the FFA if it comes to that. I would still buy tickets of cours, but wouldn’t defend the bid at all.