World Cup bid too big a job for FFA
Roar Guru
By Michael C, 28 Dec 2009 Michael C is a Roar Guru
- Tagged:
- AFL, FFA, Kate Ellis, Kevin Rudd, NRL, World Cup
Related coverage
- NRL news
- AFL news
- Toyota Premiership news
- World Cup Favourites news
- World Cup Roar of the Crowd Competition news
- Football World Cup - South Africa 2010 news
I’ve suggested a few times of late that one of the fatal flaws of FFA’s 2018-2022 World Cup bid is that the FFA, as an organisation, cannot possibly be expected to manage this process alone.
This is due to two reasons. Firstly, they are yet to run the game overly well without Kevin Rudd’s $32 million cash injection into their operational expenses account. Secondly, for a bid so heavily dependent upon the acquiescence of BOTH the AFL and NRL, it is rather naive of our Federal Government to hope or expect the FFA to pull it all together.
Thus, Kate Ellis has all but taken over – announcing a new taskforce to attempt to rescue the bid from looking as much like a waste of Government funds as it seems to be thus far. Is this an attempt to give the bid a realistic chance or just to give the impression of the Government having taken reasonable steps?
In the Fairfax press, Dan Silkstone continued to push the anti-AFL agenda on this. However, between the comments of the AFL (let’s choose to believe even just half of them), and this move by Kate Ellis and co, it suggests: “The FFA says it has met 14 times with the AFL during the past year and a half and that it is mystified by the claims of poor communication and disorganisation coming from Demetriou. True or not, some of that communication will now come from Canberra rather than from soccer’s headquarters in Sydney’s Oxford Street.”
The obvious point is that even now the FFA is unwilling or unable to cover the subject of host city exemptions with FIFA. Perhaps Kate Ellis’ cronies will have better luck.
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.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Football articles
- Phoenix need more than flash in the pan crowds (133)
- ‘New football’ fans may help save the game in Australia (124)
- Does Tasmania have a case for A-League inclusion? (119)
- What happened in Port Said was not a football riot (118)
- Is the ACL the FFA’s Achilles heel? (70)
- Magilton struggling to make a mark (68)
- A-League needs to entertain more consistently (61)
- O’ so close for John: How JON almost landed the biggest job in sport (11)
- Capello ‘walks’ from England’s top job (13)
- Fabio Capello quits as England manager after Terry fallout (4)
- Kewell confident Victory can make charge
- FIFA decision a blow to Olyroos
- Why Manchester United are never really beaten (12)
- Die Lowen a chance for a Bundesliga rise? (2)
- O’ so close for John: How JON almost landed the biggest job in sport (11)
- Capello ‘walks’ from England’s top job (13)
- Why Manchester United are never really beaten (12)
- Die Lowen a chance for a Bundesliga rise? (2)
- Hey, Victory! Give them kids a go (9)
- The problem with Melbourne Victory’s ‘hole’ season (25)
- Time for a Sydney FC clean out (24)
- Explore:
- AFL, FFA, Kate Ellis, Kevin Rudd, NRL, World Cup
Chuq said | December 28th 2009 @ 7:15am | Report comment
A football article by Michael C. Why bother? He obviously hates the game.
Funny how so many anti-WC people are unable to recognise that the event will benefit the entire nation. Why do you think the federal government supports it? Hint: It’s not because Kevin Rudd is a soccer person.
It’s not that FFA aren’t capable, its that they don’t have the legal power to deal with incompetent state governments and obstructionist winter football codes.
pH said | December 28th 2009 @ 1:58pm | Report comment
Chuq – deal with the message, shooting the messenger is yet again avoiding the issues – the FFA has made a meal of this bid so far.
Michael C said | January 4th 2010 @ 8:53pm | Report comment
Chuq – as you put it ,…not having “the legal power” is a pretty good step towards being not ‘capable’.
Main point is that the bid relies too much outside of soccer and the FFA are not – and never were going to be – realistically able to pull it off under their own steam. The waiting game for most people is around Govt(s). A. the funding to and fro and B. the ability to placate the NRL/AFL/Cricket Australia etc.
btw – ‘obstruction’ generally implies deliberately moving into the path of someone else, where as the AFL did not move themselves and Etihad into the path of the FFA – - the FFA chose to move themselves onto a collision course.
There’s a difference there – perhaps too subtle for some.
The Bear said | December 28th 2009 @ 7:32am | Report comment
“cronies” …ooouch, thou pulleth lest punches, Michael.
Punter said | December 28th 2009 @ 8:25am | Report comment
I think someone didn’t get their christmas wishes to come thru, humbug.
I suggest you stay with a sport you know & leave discussions on a sport to people with more passion for the game.
Kurt said | December 28th 2009 @ 8:44am | Report comment
I think that’s the problem with the bid punter, plenty of passion, not much planning.
Punter said | December 28th 2009 @ 9:00am | Report comment
Kurt, not from football’s point of view, the bid has been one of the best & praised by many in the football world.
But of course from an AFL point of view it’s poor planning, abit like big brother planning his big wedding & little brother saying the wedding plans will affect my birthday, complaining about poor planning.
Kurt said | December 28th 2009 @ 9:11am | Report comment
Particularly if the big brother wants to use a function centre the little brother has already booked for his birthday party…
Mr said | December 28th 2009 @ 9:17am | Report comment
Dad (Rudd) will step in to sort it out. There will be tears for sure.
“Your brother’s wedding is a one off, there are birthdays every year. Man up, and stop acting the fool.”
KB said | December 28th 2009 @ 9:28am | Report comment
Move over little brother…. some things are more important to Australia then a Melburnian McDonalds birthday party…
Punter said | December 28th 2009 @ 9:39am | Report comment
This is where we really differ, i see as the function centre offering their booking to the bigger brother because he sees bigger $ signs.
Plus the little brother will benifit as in years in come, he will have a better function centre due to the improvements required to hold his big brother’s wedding.
Kurt said | December 28th 2009 @ 9:48am | Report comment
Maybe, but the big brother is demanding that the little brother delay his birthday for two months, and not even hold it in the same city as the wedding. Plus if he doesn’t get his way he wants the government to pass a law banning little brothers from holding weddings at that time of year!
OK, enough with the brother analogy, it’s getting confusing…
KB said | December 28th 2009 @ 10:16am | Report comment
Little brother has lost the plot…
BigAl said | December 28th 2009 @ 8:08pm | Report comment
Why all this . . . speaking in code ?
– sounds like I’m listening in to a phone tap . . . !
K.B. said | December 28th 2009 @ 8:26pm | Report comment
BigAl,
that’s because everyone’s affraid you might report their comment….
Mr cheese said | December 29th 2009 @ 9:51am | Report comment
But what is the sister in law was using the other fuction room to try her dress after watching Brazil v Holland ?
Michael C said | January 4th 2010 @ 8:56pm | Report comment
if this bid were not so reliant on other football codes (who happen to occupy the time and place that the FFA wants on behalf of FIFA) – then, correct, I should not comment.
However, when my point of view that I have present in particular the last few weeks (that the FFA should NOT have been expected by the Fed Govt to organise this thing AND that it’s actually soccer people in Australia who don’t realise ‘how big’ this show is) – - has been seemingly vindicated by the Govt’s effective ‘take over’,
well. I reckon I’ve got a valid an opinion as the next person.
Norm said | December 28th 2009 @ 8:27am | Report comment
Yeah well I guess it’s not like they’re trying to organise an afl international cup.
Mr said | December 28th 2009 @ 9:03am | Report comment
I don’t see the problem here. The Federal Govt which through taxation will the major beneficiary of the WC, has provided extra assistance by offering to map out the potential spending. It appoints two of Australia’s most astute business leaders, Dixon & Harvey, to further strengthen the bid as Australia’s, not just the FFA’s. Lowy is a genius.
Kurt said | December 28th 2009 @ 9:23am | Report comment
“The Federal Govt which through taxation will the major beneficiary of the WC”
You might want to take a look at the following article:
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/buying-our-love-with-our-money-is-just-not-sporting-20091226-lfn6.html
Mr said | December 28th 2009 @ 11:05pm | Report comment
Kurt, that’s an opinion piece. For financials, you may want to try the AFR
http://www.afr.com/p/national/cup_stadiums_to_cost_bn_gcHyLfjzfemn6dzWK78QBP
Kurt said | December 28th 2009 @ 11:51pm | Report comment
Yes, it is an opinion piece, but it makes several references to serious economic studies that reveal the supposed benefits of these ‘mega-events’ to be a complete sham. The source research articles he refers to are available on the net in synopsis form.
I’ve read the AFR article previously, quite interesting. Given that the bid team originally claimed a net economic impact of $5 billion, the best case scenario now shows an ROI of less than 12% on expenditures of nearly $3 billion. And that’s taking into account various difficult to quantify benefits such as ‘promoting brand Australia’ and other such nebulous nonsense.
jimbo said | December 29th 2009 @ 12:16am | Report comment
Absolutely Kurt,
not only will a FIFA WC interrupt the AFL season, the FFA is incompetent and couldn’t run it anyway, but also any country that hosts an Olympics or FIFA WC will get no benefits whatsoever and lose billions of dollars of our money.
It is indeed a complete sham!
Beast-A-Tron said | December 29th 2009 @ 1:40am | Report comment
Got anything to say, other than your crappy strawman?
Mushi said | December 29th 2009 @ 12:40pm | Report comment
They are all opinion pieces. You are dealing with projections, based on assumptions that are based on other assumptions that are based on events which happened in a different place with limited similarities.
Calling the numbers from the AFR “financials” is hilarious; they are selective excerpts from a private report they are not financials. Next you’ll be including all of Santa’s elves in the employment numbers for December.
Mr said | December 29th 2009 @ 1:09pm | Report comment
Some are more equal than others. The PWC report is what COAG and the FFA are running with, not a comparison to a single city event.
To put things in perspective – USA (’94) S.Korea and Japan (’02) hosted recent Word Cups and are bidding again for 2018 & 2022 (S.Korea for 2022 only). Taking aside all the nonsense in the Australian Op Ed pages, why would these advanced economies want to do it again if it were to be such a millstone round their necks?
I’m waiting for the Easter Bunny.
Mushi said | December 29th 2009 @ 2:36pm | Report comment
Mr,
What is the PWC report based on? All the articles I’ve seen have suggested it draws heavily on the Germany experience. Unfortunately I am unable to verify such claims as it has not been made available, personally I would like to see what assumptions have been made and I think that, given the level of public funds involved, we should be able to get such information.
But I also ask this: what makes this PWC report some kind of incontrovertible proof? What has been leaked from the report can not be considered akin to the financials of a company.
It is a study based on a series of multilayered assumptions. I’ve been involved with these studies before and they have, without fail, always come out in the favour of the side that they are being written for. I strongly doubt that PWC decided to take a different approach for this one.
But you are correct that not all opinion pieces are equal. In this case we have a research fellow who appears to have actually conducted his own research and borrows from the research of previous world cups and an AFR journo who has displayed no original thought or insight in providing little more than selective figures which contradict his quote from a spokesperson.
To answer your questions as to why would developed economies engage in such an activity for a second time:
1. Governments aren’t always the best decision makers,
2. Economics is not the only driver of policy,
3. Different situations lead to different outcomes,
4. Repeated hosts have a lower cost base and better certainty of the outcomes
There are reasons to host the world cup which we may or may not agree with, but one of them is not the economic benefit.
Michael C said | January 4th 2010 @ 8:59pm | Report comment
Hmmm, Geoff Dixon and Qantas and soccer – - – isn’t there a conflict of interest there??? Given Qantas as the major sponsor and all?
KB said | December 28th 2009 @ 9:23am | Report comment
What is this, yet another tragic and desperate attempt to sabotage Australia’s attempt to win the biggest sporting event on Planet Earth, by another misguided AFL supporter…?
This author is naive, to have ever believed that, it was going to be the sole responsibility of the FFA to pull all the strings to run a successful Australian Football WC event on Australian soil and has wrongly assumed that its the FFA’s responsibility to guarantee a successful FIFA world cup event in 2018 on Australia soil…
When it will be, and has been all along, the Australian Government of the day, who will be the guarantors, with the help of the FFA to run a successful Australian Football World Cup, as they (the Feds) were for the 2000 Sydney Olympics.. This Football World Cup is for Australia, not only for Australian Football…
~~~~~~
KB
Axelv said | December 28th 2009 @ 2:06pm | Report comment
The World cup has 64 grand finals within a 4 week period.
The AFL and NRL have a combined 2 grand finals over a 25 week period.
The World Cup has a maximum audience of 6,000,000,000 viewers.
The AFL and NRL combined have a maximum audience of 20,000,000 viewers.
That’s 300 times the audience.
The World Cup is a once in a lifetime event, we see the AFL and NRL in Australia every year.
Australia doesn’t have the rights to host the World Cup yet, and it is in 8 or 12 years time if they do.
For just a once off, I’m sure the AFL and NRL are capable of re-arranging their seasons. It’s time to get over it and move on!
Bay35Pablo said | December 28th 2009 @ 7:59pm | Report comment
Hmmmm, Axelv.
My wife is a good sort, but Charlize Theron is a world class looker. So If I knock off Charlize just once if it’s on offer, the wife shouldn’t be so annoyed, and normal service in the bedroom should be resumed once Charlize leaves the master bedroom … ?
Mr said | December 28th 2009 @ 11:38pm | Report comment
Not quite. In this analogy, your role as a host of major events is to hit up Charlize Theron and better all the time – even if your wife is sweet and homely in a Kath & Kim sort of way. And if you knock off Charlize, the whole world will know it, and the top shelf sorts will want you even more. Make sense?
Michael C said | January 4th 2010 @ 9:35pm | Report comment
Mate –
64 GF’s in a 4 week period……really??
Germany – 2006 – avg attendances 52,491 for 64 matches. The Final in Berlin drew 69,000. FIFA venues 40,000 ish plus.
Let’s see. AFL season 2009 gave us 65 matches with crowds above 40,000. Those 65 matches averaged 55,531.
And do you know what?? All the advertising revenue/merchandising/ticketing/stadium revenue stayed in Australia rather than going into a Swiss bank account.
Once in a life time versus every single year.
btw – AFL season 2009, 5 finals plus 11 H&A games exceeded the 69,000 of the FIFA WC final.
Remember for a minute too – the AFL GF packs in 99,000……the Berlin 2006 FIFA final seating 69,000……..chicken feed by comparison!!!!
…..okay, I jest on this point.
But – again though, you illustrate a lack of understanding of the football economy of Australia populated every single year by the AFL not to mention chucking in the NRL too for good measure.
btw – world cup maximum audience only applies for the Final,….and to suggest a 100% global viewing audience is ridiculous in the extreme……let alone that the only beneficiary of whatever hypothetical figure is FIFA as they control the ‘global’ marketing of the event……..’cos, it’s a once every 4 year revenue raiser for them (90% of their four yearly revenue).
btw – in assuming ‘saturation’ to potential market viewers – AlexV needs to consider that the AFL does have a level of international coverage (as does the NRL).
AlexV also needs to consider that the AFL and NRL have previously rearranged seasons to cater for Olympics and C’wealth games and other impediments – however, never to the degree of what is being asked by a direct competitor. If it were as simple as a minor re-arrangement, then, ‘no worries’.
MV Dave said | January 4th 2010 @ 9:52pm | Report comment
Yep 64 Grand Finals in a month;
“World Cup ratings are astounding
Posted Jul 25th 2006 5:41PM by Anna Johns
Filed under: Sports, Industry
If I were in charge of an American television network, I would be brainstorming ways to get Americans excited about soccer. The ratings for World Cup are out of this world. The average television audience, worldwide, for the month-long tournament was 93 million viewers for each match. 93 MILLION. And more than 5.6 BILLION (yes, that’s a ‘B’) watched matches live in 54 global markets. The final match between Italy and France garnered an estimated 284 million viewers.
Reuters compares those numbers to America’s biggest sporting event, the Super Bowl, and determines that World Cup numbers are equivalent to 64 Super Bowls. Mama mia”
http://www.tvsquad.com/2006/07/25/world-cup-ratings-are-astounding/
Would post FIFA figures but of course you wouldn’t believe them.
Michael C said | January 4th 2010 @ 10:26pm | Report comment
That comparison doesn’t really work though – does it.
One is a domestic match primarily marketed/geared towards a single domestic market.
98.7 million US viewers.
compared to 93 million global viewers,
no comparison at all really.
MV Dave said | January 5th 2010 @ 6:07am | Report comment
What are you talking about? Of course it is a comparison…obviously one you dont want to acknowledge. BTW They are averages and so the bigger games get many more viewers. Yep 64 Grand Finals or Super Bowls…what ever you want to put against the WC, the WC will be bigger…starting to get the picture? Thats why it would be great for us to hold it in 2018/2022. You guys who know little about Sokkah have really no idea of the WCs size and scope.
pH said | December 28th 2009 @ 2:19pm | Report comment
Axelv – all true. But that is no reason for the World Cup (in its current bid format courtesy the FFA and their single commissioned ‘independent’ financial analysis) to be run in a way that it financially cripples the AFL and NRL competitions with effects that last many years.
Oh….unless the FFA had an ulterior motive to do just that….and a group of one-eyed soccer supporters would comment so praisingly of the current bid because they couldn’t give a f… about those competitor codes.
That is why the Government has effected a takeover. The press release from the Sports Minister implies the bid will now be run in a way that does no damage to the other codes. That is code for big compensation costs or even bigger stadia building costs.
The other article in the SMH about the economic costs of staging the World Cup has not even factored in this development. See the link above under Kurt’s post.
And nobody yet seems to be factoring in a post peak oil world (which will certainly be the case by 2022). Here is a bit from a financial blog (the writer is American and seems to have no ulterior motives relating to Australia’s WC bid
“In short, airlines are a major source of marginal demand for oil. Since the realities of peak oil constrain the expansion of supply, increases in demand for oil fueled by economic growth or decreases in supply caused by depletion must be matched to decreases in demand somewhere in the economy. Air travel’s profligate use of oil and relative price sensitivity mean that the industry will continue to reduce consumption faster than other transport sectors. Given slow turnover in the airline fleet and stagnant efficiency improvements, most of the decrease in oil use will have to come from a decrease in passenger miles traveled.
Substituting alternative fuels for oil is also unlikely to help the economics of aviation. A recent Rand study states, “Early in our study, we recognized that certain fuels may be more appropriate for automotive applications than for aviation. Moreover, supplies are limited for nearly all the alternative fuels we examined.” (Thanks to Jim at The Master Resource Report.) In other words, alternative fuels don’t solve the underlying problem of not enough liquid transportation fuel to go around.
There’s also the real chance that airlines will not only have to deal with peak oil, but climate change legislation as well. Even if a global tax on air travel does not come out of the Copenhagen summit, airlines are an easily identifiable target for lawmakers and other groups interested in reducing global warming emissions.”
Source for that was http://www.altenergystocks.com/archives/2009/12/experts4.html But you can find 1,000s of webpages saying the same thing.
My point is – where are the fans going to come from to supposedly pay us taxpayers back? AS Chris Berg in the SMH points out most mega-events are attended by locals and foreign tourist income always falls far short of predicted. In a 2022 WC in the antipodes sadly that problem will be multiplied several fold.
K.B. said | December 28th 2009 @ 8:36pm | Report comment
That’s right the FFA and FIFA just want the Football WC in Australia so they can destroy once and for all the threat of AFL’s global expansion …. Shiiiiiiiiiiiiish.. give us a break…
Mark said | December 28th 2009 @ 4:50pm | Report comment
To suggest Kate Ellis can do something shows how much Michael doesn’t know. That’s been the problem for FFA. They’ve had to deal with Ellis and her inexperienced staff who haven’t known how to deal with major Federal government-state government issues, which is what THIS part of the world cup bid is about. Kate Ellis is more interested in parties (just ask the News Ltd boys) than real work and it’s where she’s most comfortable. Ben Buckley and his team are much more effective but haven’t had the fire power behind them and nor should they have to deal with intergovernmental funding issues. Mark, Canberra
Kurt said | December 28th 2009 @ 10:22pm | Report comment
Maybe so Mark, but she is hot. At least compared to other pollies I suppose.
mahony said | December 31st 2009 @ 10:38am | Report comment
Spot on Mark – as a long time civil servant in Canberra you can bet this task force is all the doing of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. Rudd runs a tight ship. He learned this from the Master – a certain Howard, J. The government is simply asserting its control over the bid and this is a great thing for football. The NSW government ran the Olympics bid and the Federal Government absolutely need to run this one. The FFA have done a wonderful job to-date, but now the financial guarantees are in – they don’t own the bid anymore. The Australian people do.
Michael C said | January 4th 2010 @ 9:44pm | Report comment
Did I actually suggest anywhere that Ellis et al could actually ‘Do it’?? I might’ve, if I did, I appologies,
but,
Ellis in a bikini vs Abbott in budgie smugglers……..no contest there.
matty1974 said | December 28th 2009 @ 7:28pm | Report comment
How it must burn the Aussie rules acolytes who frequent this site to know that the FIFA world cup will be coming to Oz in either 2018 or 2022. yet again we have yet another poorly thought out and poorly researched opinion piece on the Oz world cup bid. no mention that Australia’s opponents for the world up are: USA (who hosted in1994, who are not asian and this would mean two USA, 4 concacaf and 9 pan american wc’s, compared to one asian wc (despite asia having at least 2/3 of the global population and the largest cumulative tv viewing audiences), who refuse to move their domestic season into line with the fifa calender, in contradiction of Sepp Blatters requests over the last 10 years and who are unable to run a WC that would provide adequate tv coverage to the two most important tv markets, aisa and europe. Qatar, a country that punishes public drunkeness by whip lashing and requires a person to obtain a permit to purchase alcohol from one of their two (yes that’s right 2) liquor stores and is 40 degrees+ in june and july. Indonesia, who could not guarentee the safety of a single football team (Man u cancelled 2009 tour) let alone 32 teams and a millions fans and Japan and Korea who hosted just 7 years ago. If i were an aussie rules fan, i’d be more worried about how the afl is going to successfully implement two new teams on the GC and western sydney whilst ensuring that nth melbourne stop throwing matches to ensure they get priority draft picks.