Demetriou was right to question World Cup impact
By Michael DiFabrizio, 9 Dec 2009 Michael DiFabrizio is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- AFL, Andrew Demetriou, football, World Cup football
180 Have your say
Andrew Demetriou’s comments on Monday, in which he said an AFL season could be under threat if Australia is successful in its World Cup bid, have caused quite a stir. Some out there are even starting to think Demetriou is plotting to bring down the bid.
Or that he’s merely an insular, narrow-minded fool.
Or that his comments were, as journalist Ray Gatt put it, “just the AFL boss’s idea of stirring up the rabid masses in the aerial ping pong game.”
But one thing has been missing from all the uproar – some context.
Demetriou was speaking in response to a newspaper report that the MCG could be unavailable for nearly an entire home-and-away season.
What’s the significance of that?
Well, it means his comments were not some baseless pre-planned media assault designed to coincide with the announcement of the draw for the 2010 World Cup, for starters.
More importantly, however, it means 40 to 50-odd games (around a quarter of all games) will need to find new homes should plans for the ground’s reconfiguration go ahead. And that’s just the outcome of the MCG’s unavailability.
Given the FFA are now relying on the occupation of Etihad Stadium for the World Cup – despite the stadium’s protests – another 20-odd games on top of that will need to find homes.
This isn’t about derailing another code’s bid for a massive global event to be held in Australia. This is about making sure that event isn’t detrimental to that code’s rivals.
If the MCG is wiped out for a season, and Etihad is a World Cup venue, then Demetriou’s claim that a season will not go ahead does not actually seem far-fetched.
With no MCG or Etihad, where are Collingwood and Essendon – who both average over 50,000 spectators to home games – going to play? Where are Hawthorn – who have over 50,000 members – going to play?
Right now, the only forthcoming answers are Geelong and Launceston.
When talk of the bid began, it was assumed that the MCG would be out of action for only four weeks, and that Melbourne’s second venue would be an expanded version of the new rectangular stadium. Etihad Stadium would be left to the AFL.
That arrangement seemed fine. It could’ve worked well.
Then came the talk of FIFA needing an extra four weeks at each venue to replace signage and bring the pitch quality up to standard.
Then came the talk of a “design bungle” at the rectangular stadium, meaning expansion would supposedly cost more than the venue’s initial construction.
Then came the talk that the AFL season would be classified as a “major event” by FIFA and would have to shut down for up to two months.
Then, on Monday, came the talk that the MCG might actually be out of action for a whole 16 weeks.
Is it any wonder Andrew Demetriou started talking to the press?
At some point the AFL had to draw a line in the sand and say that enough is enough. The FFA have become increasingly reliant on the MCG and Etihad since the bid process began.
Now, there needs to be some sort of compromise.
For example, if the MCG is indeed going to be taken for 16 weeks, then Etihad should absolutely be left for the AFL. At the very least the FFA should ensure that the AFL season is not given major event status.
It shouldn’t be too hard, mind you. No matter what words I punch into Google, I cannot find a single article outlining any sort of conflict between Major League Baseball and those behind the United States’ World Cup bid.
Which provides a whole different kind of context, doesn’t it?
Maybe we’re all just jumping at shadows. In the States, there is no debate over major event status. It seems as though a repeat of 1994 – when the baseball season continued despite the World Cup – is expected.
Don’t get me wrong, a World Cup would be great for Australia.
And hey, even Andrew Demetriou agrees. He’s been supportive of the bid, much in the same way that the AFL was accommodating of the Olympics and Commonwealth Games.
It’s just that there is a tipping point. And if Etihad is taken for two months, and the MCG for 16 weeks, then that tipping point has been reached.
That’s why Demetriou had to speak out.
The FFA must rise to the challenge of forming a bid that isn’t detrimental to the other codes. To do that, they’ll have to compromise.
Even if it means negotiating with the aerial ping pong game.
Follow Michael on twitter @mdifabrizio
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.
- Explore:
- AFL, Andrew Demetriou, football, World Cup football


Kurt said | December 9th 2009 @ 3:11am | Report comment
Thank goodness for a ray of sanity in all this nonsense, excellent article Michael. Before this turns into another inevitable flame I’m going to try and outline the concerns of many AFL fans in as concise and non-emotional way as possible.
The MCG and Docklands (sorry, refuse to use ever changing corporate stadium names) have long term contracts with the AFL, and by extension the clubs. We are being told these will be overridden, by government legislation if necessary.
The WC is a huge global event that will (allegedly) deliver billions to the Australian economy, but we are told it can’t afford to build and use its own stadiums. Instead it has to take over the only two AFL stadiums in Melbourne for 2 months+.
We are told those of us uninterested in the WC are ‘xenophobes and racists’, but there is still the possibility that FIFA will insist that the AFL and NRL be banned during the WC because of the apparently existential threat these sports represent to the WC. This is apparently fair and reasonable and in no way represents an intolerant refusal to countenance competition for the limelight.
Can any of the soccer fans take just a few seconds to consider these points? Our local game that so many of you mock is to be denied its contractual rights to play at stadiums it is primarily responsible for funding AND might not even be able to play whilst the WC is on due to FIFA’s insistence that all possible competition. And you seriously wonder why we’re a bit peeved?
The facts are the FFA needs the AFL on board right now, and needs to show a spirit of compromise. For mine, I’d be happy if the AFL were able to keep exclusive use of Docklands throughout the WC but allow the WC to have the MCG for 8 weeks. The FFA can find the money to upgrade the Swan St stadium to cope with WC games. Surely that’s a reasonable outcome for all parties?
Anthony said | December 12th 2009 @ 10:00am | Report comment
That is the best comment yet on Demetriou. The soccer fans are attacking full-on….but it’s all dishonest attack. FFA is the one deceiving us all!
Tifosi said | December 9th 2009 @ 4:10am | Report comment
“Well, it means his comments were not some baseless pre-planned media assault designed to coincide with the announcement of the draw for the 2010 World Cup, for starters.”
Baseless No, Pre planned Yes. Everyone knows how the AFL works. They have been doing it to League for years
http://www.smh.com.au/sport/soccer/afl-brinksmanship-must-look-at-big-picture-20091207-kfam.html
Kurt said | December 9th 2009 @ 4:20am | Report comment
Michael Lynch misses the point much as you have Tifosi – it’s not about the MCG, it’s about Docklands. The AFL has essentially agreed to relinquish their contractual rights to use the MCG for up to 10 weeks to coincide with the WC, but are insisting on keeping Docklands. The FFA need to find $150m to upgrade / re-build the bubble stadium to meet FIFA’s requirements and this whole issue can be wrapped up by morning tea time on Thursday.
Tifosi said | December 9th 2009 @ 4:27am | Report comment
Ian Royall argues the case for favouring Australia’s World Cup bid over the AFL
Ian Royall is a senior Herald Sun journalist and a dedicated fan of both codes
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/ian-royall-argues-the-case-for-favouring-australias-world-cup-bid-over-the-afl/story-e6frfhqf-1225807899477
Kurt said | December 9th 2009 @ 4:31am | Report comment
“So that means home-and-away blockbuster games would have to be played at Etihad Stadium. Not ideal, but hardly the end of the world.”
I agree with him – as long as the AFL gets to keep Docklands and only loses the MCG for a couple of months it can probably work. But at the moment the FFA is giving tours of Docklands to visiting journalists, so I think it’s fair to say there’s a bit of a gap there still to be bridged.
Michael C said | December 9th 2009 @ 5:18am | Report comment
At the moment that the FFA declared in late October that they wanted BOTH the MCG and Docklands and that the new Swan St stadium was not to be considered,
from that moment on, war was declared,
as, that effectively said that there was zero AFL in Melbourne for a minimum of 8 weeks.
Not just that the AFL would need to schedule the MCG out of considerations for that time frame.
From that point on, Buckley set the wheels in motion – - the AFL was in their sights. Buckley can’t cry poor me now – Buckley knows better than anyone else on the soccer side.
Either Buckley intended to run a war with the AFL over Docklands,…or,….he intends to call upon the Govt to enforce a FIFA host city exclusion ban on both the AFL and NRL. They’re really the only options, because, without that FIFA rule being forced, the AFL intend to NOT stop their season. It’s that simple.
It comes back to —- it’s a flawed bid.
It come back to – - – why don’t they just demolish the pretty little Swan St stadium roof, expand the venue to 50K as per the foundations, put a new roof on and use that and not attempt to crap all over the AFL in Melbourne. Or is that too expensive?!?!??!?
Dean Pantio said | December 9th 2009 @ 12:20pm | Report comment
I can’t see the state government agreeing to that; they’d be kicked out of office and rightly so.
The other codes should tell FIFA and FFA to jam it up their backsides.
peter h. said | December 9th 2009 @ 8:16pm | Report comment
Everyway you look at this the FFA has kicked an own goal. They haven’t done their homework before putting in the bid. They are embarrassing the govt and the country.
Your article Michael is spot on.
What I wonder is was Ben Buckley forced by FFA heavy-weights to not do all the homework, as he has been able to come out supportive of the AFL’s right to exist/play on since his mate Demetriou’s comments? Maybe FFA officials like Frank Lowy were of a “nah don’t worry about details with those provincial codes, we’re the world game” up til then.
Just speculation – but the FFA have been so unprofessional in this. The soccer/rugby stadium in Melbourne not being configured for FIFA WC standards is another appalling error.
Rabbitz said | December 9th 2009 @ 6:14am | Report comment
I really have no dog in this fight, I am not an AFL follower, I am ambivalent to soccer, I am not in Melbourne. So from an outsiders view it seems to me that the AFL is a business. As such they are reacting to a threat from a competitor which is being promoted by government to deny them access to their place of business, their market and therefore their livelihood.
So if the CEO comes out and uses the media and other methods to protect his business, isn’t that his job? Wouldn’t the stakeholders of any business expect a CEO to do this?
Personally, I would like to see some soccer world cup games, but if FIFA and FFA need legislation, which will harm competitive businesses, need government funding, then the bid is not morally or financially viable.
agga78 said | December 9th 2009 @ 7:01am | Report comment
Do the AFL own the MCG or the government? The government do, so Demetriwho can go @#$% off back to the suburbs of Melbourne with his game that has always tried to destroy football in this country. Give AFL nothing FFA because if the shoe was on the other foot the AFL would certainly tell Football where to go.
Pippinu said | December 9th 2009 @ 7:04am | Report comment
agga
give the AFL nothing? It’s the FFA who is doing all the begging – not the other way round!!
Kurt said | December 9th 2009 @ 7:06am | Report comment
Hmm, let’s try and respond to this one sensibly. No, the AFL does not own the MCG, nor does it own Docklands. But it does have contracts with both venues giving it the right to play its matches there at the time the FFA wants them for the WC. So it ‘owns’ the right to play there.
And the issue is not really about the MCG, which the AFL has said it is happy to vacate for two months, but Docklands, which is a privately owned stadium whose owner has formally advised the FFA they do not wish to be involved in the WC bid.
So you see this is not really about ‘giving’ the AFL anything. It’s the AFL that has to ‘give’ something to the FFA – namely the right to play at these stadiums.
Pippinu said | December 9th 2009 @ 7:29am | Report comment
Kurt
I’ve been trying to educate non-AFL fans on the property rights issue for months now – but have got nowhere.
Kurt said | December 9th 2009 @ 7:35am | Report comment
Yeah, it’s a strange one isn’t it? I remember back to when we were discussing this a few months back and all the soccer fans said that the government will just tell the AFL to bugger off and get out of the stadiums! Yes in theory the federal government can legislate to confiscate property (which is essentially what they’d be doing here) but this is a very complex constitutional area fraught with the possibility of any incompatible legislation being struck down by the High Court – if it gets passed in the first place of course.
And it could all have been avoided by building the Swan St stadium with a slightly less fancy roof!
Redb said | December 9th 2009 @ 7:43am | Report comment
If they legislate they lose.
mahony said | December 10th 2009 @ 11:10am | Report comment
“just compensation” – go look at the case law. You will get a rude suprise. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain#Australia
Gatto Nero said | December 9th 2009 @ 8:05am | Report comment
If this gets tied up in the courts it’s a definite that Australia won’t win the bid anyway. The FFA wouldn’t want the bad press and attention would be drawn to the fact that there isn’t unanimous support behind the bid.
Trevor said | December 10th 2009 @ 3:24pm | Report comment
Without the money flowing from the VFL/AFL for over one hundred years the MCG would not be the stadium it is today, so in a moral sense the AFL does own the MCG. Without the AFL Australia wouldn’t even have the sporting reputation is does today. What has soccer done to deserve access to a stadium built by money from fans of the Australian code? Why does soccer so arrogantly believe it should take priority over other sports?
The culture of soccer is imperialistic. If there is one common thread from all the soccer fans I’ve met and soccer coverage in the media, it’s that the fans are more interested in the tribal aspects than the actual sport itself, examine the dismissive nature of your own comments. Look at the comments of other soccer people, they’re all dripping with self importance. Nobody ever mentions anything redeeming about the game, which by any objective comparison is far slower and less eventful than our football.
Listen to the arrogance of the FFA, listen to what soccer fans say. It is clear that soccer cannot abide co-existence with other codes of football. The motivations of the FFA in bidding for the world cup have less to do with genuine interest in the event and more to do with displacing local codes.
Pippinu said | December 9th 2009 @ 7:03am | Report comment
Michael d
terrific article and spot on analysis, and some good follow up comments.
Rabbitz is spot on – and he comes from a non-AFL perspective.
This theme has been mentioned many times by me as well:
1. Government is going to spend billions of taxpayer funds to effectively give a foreign and corrupt sporting body billions of dollars
2. The local sporting body is not only being inconvenienced, but is giving up their property rights and incurring massive financial losses to assist the foreign and corrupt sporting body to pocket billions of dollars.
Rabbitz is spot on – it’s not morally or financially viable.
Redb said | December 9th 2009 @ 7:11am | Report comment
Great article Michael.
There are those outside Melbourne who don’t understand and some in Melbourne due to their round ball myopia who choose to ignore the basic fundamentals of an AFL season and the crowd support it receives.
Redb
Kovalchuck said | December 9th 2009 @ 7:14am | Report comment
Can you imagine the WC being played in Australia. Ten years of media coverage leading up to the event. Sponsors jumping ship to expose their product to billions and not millions. International tourism levels through the roof. Youngsters lining up to emulate their Socceroo heros. This has absolutly nothing to do with stadium availability for the 8 weeks before and during the WC. If I was Andrew I would be panicing as well. However there are interstate, suburban and regional grounds that would kill for a peice of the AFL action. TV coverage will still get all of the games. What is the major problem? As for the 25 year lease on Docklands does anyone knows when that runs out?
Pippinu said | December 9th 2009 @ 7:37am | Report comment
Kovalchuck
I”m not sure if it’s Demetriou panicking or Buckley.
The privately owned Etihad told the FFA two days ago that it has zero interest in hosting World Cup games?
Why? Becaues it would incur a massive financial loss?
Why? Because FIFA comes in, uses the infrastructure free of charge, then pockets all the receipts.
So if you’re a private owner of a stadium – why on Earth woudl you be interested in turning aside the 1.5 million per annum patronage for the local game, and hosting World Cup games that delivers you not one single brass razoo?
Luke W said | December 9th 2009 @ 7:54am | Report comment
So the WC gets the MCG, the AFL gets Etihad for two months. Everyone wins.
Michael C said | December 9th 2009 @ 11:55am | Report comment
and so we hope it will be.
Luke W said | December 9th 2009 @ 7:57am | Report comment
I also can’t help but chuckle when people make it seem as if contracts mean anything in the current sporting world. Any contract will get thrown out the window if enough dollars are thrown at it.
Michael C said | December 9th 2009 @ 11:58am | Report comment
re contracts, the AFL, the MCC/MCG and Docklands,…you’d better believe those contracts are water tight.
And they are long term and big business – for either the MCC or Docklands to seek a major variance from an unhappy AFL will hurt, big time.
For the AFL to seek a variance from the venues has been super pain staking. Finally they got the MCG to agree to ‘finals banking’ to allow the scenario’s of 2 interstate Prelim finals for example. That took a couple of painful years.
These contracts have been tested over and over. ANd spaning to 2025 in Docklands case and spanning to 2037 in MCG case…….the AFL has some bargaining power, because, the World Cup is only 1 year (and the Confed cup is another of course), whilst the AFL is every year.
Michael C said | December 9th 2009 @ 8:02am | Report comment
Guys -
for $150 million, there’s no problem.
That’s how much it’d seemingly costs to rip the roof off the dedicated rectangle stadium in Swan St, expand that to 50K capacity and the FFA don’t need Docklands.
That’s all it needs.
The AFL has said they can work around the MCG.
So, $150 million and ‘no worries’.
…….now, if $150 million is considered too expensive, then, god help the FFA bid.
Gatto Nero said | December 9th 2009 @ 8:29am | Report comment
Absolutely ridiculous suggestion though. They haven’t even completed the stadium as designed yet, and posters are suggesting that they rip it down to construct a new one at an additional cost of $150 million to Victorian taxpayers? Simply ludicrous, and that’s even before anybody asks whether the Storm, Heart or Super 15 franchise – all of whom will be ongoing tenants – want or can possibly fill a 40,000 seat venue. 30,000 will be perfect for their niche markets, and if any club exceeds that then Etihad becomes a viable venue.
One question not addressed is whether Melbourne actually NEEDS two venues for this event. Why not just play matches at the MCG and let that be a stand-alone venue, as in Perth, Adelaide and Brissy? Ben Buckley rabbits on that ”If Etihad is not included we would have to relocate a significant amount of games away from Victoria and that would be a real shame for the people of Victoria”. But really, Melbourne would still host the same number of matches as every city except Sydney – surely not a terrible loss for Melburnians, who still would have access to a number of matches at the MCG and could drive or fly to access other games interstate.
The whole thing boils down to the fact that, even if Etihad and the MCG are used, there are nowhere near enough 40,000 seat stadiums across Australia. Adelaide is planning a new stadium, nobody has heard from Perth, and outside of Brissy, Sydney and Melbourne there isn’t another population centre that could sustainably support a 40,000 seat venue over the long term. So with 5 of 12 venues up-to-scratch at the moment (including Etihad, and in only 3 cities of the 10 requested), does anybody seriously believe that our bid is a pinch on those of England and the USA? After all, we may have the most beautiful country in the world, with many varied sights and cities that World Cup tourists would like to explore, but we lack half the most basic infrastructure necessary to host the Cup. That should be a sobering thought for a lot of Cup proponents.
Pippinu said | December 9th 2009 @ 8:38am | Report comment
Gatto
but if the work to extend were to be undertaken in 2020, then the cost could be justified.
Also, re venues – this is the nub of the problem – we are struggling to come up with 12 decent venues!!
That’s why we need 4 or 5 cricket ovals!!
People keep ignroing the fact that this was a half-ar$ed bid to begin with.
Gatto Nero said | December 9th 2009 @ 9:01am | Report comment
Thanks for your comment Pip. I suppose, with my background in strategic planning, I’m more skeptical of our ability to justify expansions to stadiums ten years from now. Forecasting sporting attendances is fraught with problems. I’m sure if you asked the A-League even a year or two ago, they would have forecast much higher attendances than they’re currently getting. All sports are optimistic about growth, but the reality is that it’s not guaranteed, and where growth does occur, it’s not consistent across all markets. In short, I’d be very cautious about giving the go ahead to expanding a stadium ten years from now, when Melbourne’s rectangular stadium hasn’t yet hosted a single match of any sport and we’re yet to find out whether an expansion is justified.
The venue problem will become a quagmire for this bid. My argument concerning Melbourne’s rectangular stadium is one instance where we should be cautious, but the reality is we’ll need to upgrade facilities in a host of smaller cities to win the bid. If we can’t yet justify a 40,000 seat venue in Melbourne, how is a similar venue in (choose from Townsville/Canberra/Hobart/Darwin/Alice Springs/Launceston/Woolongong – all featured in the Cape Town bid book) going to be sustainable? Most of those cities struggle to fill their existing venues, so I can’t see how they could benefit from upgrading to venues that could house up to half of their civic populace.
Brian said | December 9th 2009 @ 10:03am | Report comment
The South Africans are using 10 stadiums. I would have thought the logics of our bid would be the same – 10 stadiums
Sydney Homebush 80,000
Sydney SFS 45,000
Melbourne MCG 100,000
Melbourne Dome 55,000
Brisbane Suncorp 60,000 (increase from current 52,000)
Adelaide Oval 50,000 as per last week announcement
Perth 60,000 (new stadium for WC converted to AFL WC following tournament)
Newcastle 40,000 (Newcastle Knights)
Canberra 40,000 (Brumbies & Raiders)
Gold Coast 40,000 (Titans)
Of the AFL states on Perth, Adelaide & Melbourne are viable however in Rugby territory Gold Coast, Canberra, Newcastle & possibly Townsville 40,000 should certainly be viable. I assume the above is the bid and is why stadioums such as Telstra Dome are required
Dean Pantio said | December 9th 2009 @ 12:25pm | Report comment
Where would they cram in another 8000 seats at Suncorp?