By Mike Tuckerman
December 29th 2009 @ 1:39am
World Cup bid makes us truly global citizens
The Australian Socceroos' Mark Viduka kicks the ball in the Australia v Japan opening Group F match at the Soccer World Cup in Kaiserslautern, Germany, Monday, June 12, 2006. This is Australia's first World Cup finals appearance in 32 years. AAP Image/Dave Hunt
When I was in high school, I dreamed of travelling the globe. I mostly blame Les Murray for this, because his ‘World Soccer’ show became compulsory viewing of a Saturday afternoon.
Every weekend after watching the show, I’d dream of the days when I too could stand on the terraces of world football’s most famous stadia, watching the best players on the planet strut their stuff in front of packed houses.
The reality is that when I was old enough to set out for Europe, I spent most of my time watching dreadful German third division games at Fortuna Köln’s crumbling Südstadion.
Nevertheless, I always appreciated that football offered me a more worldly view than the staid suburban environment I grew up in.
So it was with a sense of excitement that I greeted the news that Australia was to bid to host the World Cup finals, although my joy was apparently not shared by those who call the NRL and AFL their sport of choice.
They argue that the cost of halting the domestic NRL and AFL seasons is too great to bother mounting a serious bid to host the World Cup, but as someone whose love of the round ball game has resulted in numerous trips abroad, I can’t help but feel that such complaints are a tad myopic.
In a country that craves international recognition, turning down the world’s biggest sporting event because it temporarily impacts on local affairs is like denying Rafael Nadal a shot at the Australian Open because hard courts don’t suit his natural game.
That is to say, not a particularly smart idea.
For a nation that has a reputation for being open-minded and cosmopolitan, it seems absurd to sabotage the chance to host the world’s most important sporting event because it impacts on local affairs.
I was at the 2006 World Cup in Germany, and I can safely say that the tournament supersedes anything this country has ever seen.
And as someone who not only hails from the rugby league heartland that is western Sydney, but who has also watched the odd game of AFL in Melbourne, that’s a statement I feel qualified to make.
The football World Cup should be right up our alley, so it’s a shame that so many cloak their views in quasi-nationalist rhetoric to claim that football is a foreign sport and that parochial interests must be protected.
They are entitled to their opinions – but so are the thousands of fans whose passion for the round ball game is not intended as a snub to domestic sports, and who support football simply because of a love for the game.
These fans might occasionally be drowned out by the din of newspaper columnists looking to protect their own self-interests, but undoubtedly they exist.
I can understand that NRL and AFL fans don’t wish to see their respective seasons interrupted by a World Cup.
But since the essence of ground-sharing means exactly that – to share – perhaps these fans can take a temporary back seat to a tournament that makes the Olympics look like a village get-together.
We’re talking about a potential $5.3 billion economic windfall – according to the boffins who come up with these figures – not to mention the hundreds of millions who tune into the tournament on TV sets across the globe.
And in a rapidly globalised world, hosting a World Cup would make us truly global citizens.
Whether that’s something the average Australian wants is another topic for debate.
But if the ethos of being Australian is to “get in and have a go,” I’d like to see the Australian government mount an open and honest bid to host the World Cup finals – regardless of whether that puts a few noses out of joint amongst the status quo.
I’m sure that NRL and AFL fans will disagree, but I don’t think I’m alone in that desire.
Get Australia's best Football opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(401)
Yup said | December 29th 2009 @ 2:17am | Report comment
“The football World Cup should be right up our alley, so it’s a shame that so many cloak their views in quasi-nationalist rhetoric to claim that football is a foreign sport and that parochial interests must be protected.”
Please tell me the soccer season is over soon. I’m sure this bloke scored an A+ in his english exam but i couldn’t give two hoots less. All this talk ok “football” on the roar is driving me nuts. I wonder whos gonna win the quasi national cup this year. What the hell is a quasi? I hope we get the soccer world cup. Then its done and over just like the olympics. Never again will we have to deal with crappy sport.
B.C. said | December 29th 2009 @ 10:37pm | Report comment
O.K. lets have the SOCCER world cup, give the SKINNYROOS their 2 weeks of glory in front of huge crowds at home.
Let Frank Lowy convince K747 to blow a mint load of money on it and rack up more debt.
All we want is to be able to continue with our FOOTBALL codes of choice be they AFL or RL.
It will come and go, the status quo will remain, the deluded minority think that a soccer tsunami will convert all before it, they will still be saying that in 50 years, it wont happen.
But lets have the soccer world cup anway.
At least we will then be “global citizens” ………………..unlike now.
andrewMc said | December 29th 2009 @ 3:20am | Report comment
Good Article. I too hope that football makes us global citizens. It was only the other month that my 4 year old nephew was telling me all about Oman. He knew where is was, its captial, what language they spoke and what their religion was. And all because the Socceroos were playing Oman. I don’t think I could’ve found New Zealand when I was four!!
Master Blaster said | December 29th 2009 @ 5:58am | Report comment
“We’re talking about a potential $5.3 billion economic windfall” – So why can’t the AFL and NRL clubs share in that by offering matches for tourists to attend while here in Australia for the WC?
The AFL and NRL are sports that are part of our national culture, moreso than soccer, and anyone coming to Australia should be allowed to avail themselves of the chance to experience these Australian sports if they wish. Isn’t that the point in hosting any international event? To showcase all of Australia? The AFL and NRL are very much part of everyday life in Australia.
No AFL or NRL fan is saying “Don’t bring the WC here” — they are objecting to soccer’s demand that the AFL and NRL must shut down.
Punter said | December 29th 2009 @ 7:39am | Report comment
I have not heard from anyone from FIFA or the FFA that AFL or NRL needs to shut down during the FIFA WC, only NRL & AFL officials & media. However I don’t disagree they need to get together to discuss the sharing of the grounds, even Mike Gibson the old Rugby League dinosaur thinks there is plenty of time to draft up a spreadsheet or 2 to please everyone.
The NRL & AFL are part of our national culture, no doubt about it, but like the Storm in Melbourne & Sydney Swans & Brisbane Lions & soon to be new teams in Gold Coast & Western Sydney, things can change. Football in this country in more widely followed than just the A-League & even more so at WC time. This is what most of the ardent NRL or AFL supporters don’t understand. Even though I’m a football fan, I have & would again go to RU or Cricket WCs. It’s more than sport, it’s an event & with the WC, you are talking about the biggest sporting event in the world.
Aka said | December 29th 2009 @ 9:37am | Report comment
Master Blaster,
AFL is a part of southern Australian culture and RL is part of northern Australian culture.
And football, although not dominant, is also (arguably moreso) a part of our national culture.
Chuq said | December 29th 2009 @ 10:38am | Report comment
“soccer’s demand that the AFL and NRL must shut down” – the non-existent (or at least, unconfirmed and unlikely going by precendents)?
It looks like Andrew Demetriou only has to say something once and the anti-WC brigade latch on to it, as the perfect “excuse” – whether or not it is true.
The lockout refers to major sporting events such as Wimbledon, The Ashes and Rugby internationals, and is designed to prevent massive demands on transport, accommodation, security, and so on. Domestic competitions don’t count. Major League Baseball was allowed to continue in 1994, and that is a significantly larger league than the AFL/NRL.
The only “lockout” will be from the stadia used by the World Cup.
Punter said | December 29th 2009 @ 11:33am | Report comment
I don’t think the truth is what these guys want. They want to hold onto to this us aagainst them mentality & tell the FFA & FIFA where to go.
So if FIFA decides against giving the WC to Australia, it will give them the satisfaction of thinking their sport told FIFA where to go. It’s called small man mentality.
Like I said I’m a football person but would have no issues with any sport holding their WCs in Australia & in Cricket & Rugbys cases I would even attend, because it would be a world event.
Australian Football said | January 1st 2010 @ 10:20am | Report comment
Punter,
I agree with you … no one in the Football family complained about the AFL International Cup in Australia, the RU WC or the RL WC or any other WC of any sport … but when we want to hold the most important WC of any sport … Oh no, it will be the end of Australia as we know it … If that was true; then it would be about time it was done to bring us up speed with the rest of the world..
~~~~~~~
KB
Jeb said | December 30th 2009 @ 10:00am | Report comment
so melbourne suburb vs melbourne suburb isn’t a major sporting event then? you’re kidding.
agga78 said | December 29th 2009 @ 7:04am | Report comment
Master Blaster Rugby league is English not Australian, as for AFL it’s huge in most parts of Australia except for two of the three biggest States in Australia, Qld and NSW (see TV ratings for these states to confirm lack of interest).
Master Blaster said | December 29th 2009 @ 7:49am | Report comment
Rugby league was born in England, but ask any Englishman which country has been running the game for the past 50 years and they will say Australia.
All the major rule changes have come from here, it is played here, and Australia has the code’s #1 competition and #1 international team since the 1970s.
By your logic soccer isn’ the world game, it is an English game played by the world.
Mr cheese said | December 29th 2009 @ 9:43am | Report comment
You may ( or may not ) be interested to learn that we in England do not call football “the world game”.
I think it’s fair to say that football was codified ( whatever that verb means ) in England and played in many different countries around the world.
As for RL: if you asked “any Englishman” which country has been running that sport, many of them would say “What is Rugby League ?”.
amused said | December 29th 2009 @ 7:08am | Report comment
I believe the author of the article got his economic numbers wrong.
it’s actually $530 billion and 50 million jobs created. here in australia.
i/e numbers like that are bandied around and are a complete load of rubbish. believe me, i studied economics at uni, work in the financial markets and can safely say you can create any numbers you want for any purpose.
perhaps michael pascoe’s column on it sheds some interesting light on this “bids” true cost
http://www.smh.com.au/business/beware-the-coming-soccer-circus-20091214-krcb.html
Mushi said | December 29th 2009 @ 7:45am | Report comment
I Also would love to see where the 5.3 billion economic windfall (maybe it’s 5.3billion pesos)?
There is an article in the AFR based on portions of the leaked report that has the net benefits at A$345m, which is based on a A$1.6bn boost in “brand Australia”. (substantially larger than the boost projected, but never realised, for the Olympics)
Now ask any investor wether they would stake their money on a project where the positive outcome is entirely reliant on a large intangible that has been valued by experts hired by the sellers, and remains unable to be verified because the sellers refuse to make the document public?
Will such an event raise the global profile, undoubtedly yes (though 1.6bn seems more than excessive for a country that already has a large tourism industry)
Vince said | December 29th 2009 @ 7:19am | Report comment
AFL is genuinely worried due to the war for talent as Sam Newman said on the AFL Footy Show about 10 years ago that the World Cup in Australia (by the way it is the only one that doesn’t have a “sport” at the front of it because it is the original) would be harmful as every boy for years leading up to it would want to take up the sport to try and make the National Team.
Football is already the no 1 sport for participation nation wide but in Victoria, the home of AFL (it really hasn’t gone much further than SA and WA to be honest, the rest are just outposts to symbolise a “National” competition), football has over 22% of 5-14 year old boys and AFL 13% playing.
The issue is down to the use of multi-purpose stadiums that exist in Australia.
Football is played in the Summer to make access to grounds possible and to be more in line with overseas competitions – hence why the World Cup would be held in Winter if it makes it to Australia.
Timmypig said | December 29th 2009 @ 7:22am | Report comment
Mike as a rusted on rugby nut, albeit one who also enjoys football, rugby league, American football & Aussie Rules, I say “BRING IT ON!” But I don’t for one minute believe the ‘rivers of gold’ arguments, nor do I think the ‘putting us on the map’ argument holds any weight.
When the the winner was ‘SYDDEY’ and we hosted the greatest Olympics of all, did that not ‘put us on the map’? Becoming overnight experts on class 5A in the Left Handed Ball Scratching (under 65 kg), and quite liking the chances of that young bloke from Paraguay …. well …. the case for exposing us to the world, and the world to us starts wearing thin. We still had mandatory detention and Cronulla Riots; I’d argue that hosting the Olympics made no difference, other than creating at great expense the worst stadium I’ve ever been to.
Hosting the World Cup won’t have any upsides for other sports, really. Infrastructure spending is something that the government should be either doing or actively sponsoring anyway, regardless of any World Cup bid. It may even be that spending on infrastructure for the World Cup diverts infrastructure spending on ports, freight rail, electricity generation and distribution, etc, which are the REAL big ticket infrastructure items.
So, are there ANY arguments in favour of hosting the World Cup? Yep, there’s one overriding argument…. IT’S REALLY REALLY COOL. How much fun will it be to go to a stadium with 59997 other lunatics and cheer yourself hoarse to Belgium v Costa Rica or Cameroon v North Korea?
Hazey the Bear said | December 29th 2009 @ 7:24am | Report comment
So Mike,
By your standards, any country that has not bid/hosted a World Cup is not a “global citizen”?
Riiigggghhht….
football said | December 29th 2009 @ 7:26am | Report comment
Pascoe makes the assumption that tourists wont come, citeing the Syd Olympics as an example. Pascoe also fails to compare the different tourist numbers between the Athens Olympics & the German WC.
Numbers can tell the story you want especially if like Pascoe your assumptions are flawed or if you refer to specific sectors & the impact on those sectors.
Amused the numbers can also tell the real story & the real economic impact or dont you live by your P&L in the FINANCIAL MARKETS & daily price revaluations.
Lets get serious & not refer to flawed articles makeing flawed assumptions.
Kurt said | December 29th 2009 @ 7:44am | Report comment
No worries footy. Refer us to a non-flawed article written by an economist that claims the WC will deliver massive economic benefits. Just one.
Mushi said | December 29th 2009 @ 7:57am | Report comment
Wow don’t ask him to back up his statement kurt.
Suggesting that the result will be more akin to Germany than the Sydney Olympics omits distance, season and capacity issues which Germany didn’t face.
How about this if Football Australia is so adamant that this will work out then how about they pay out all the costs, rather than the tax payer, and the government can reimburse them as these locked in stone 1.6bn of benefits come in?
football said | December 29th 2009 @ 7:40am | Report comment
Timmypig
I can refer to my Rugby WC experience going to Canberra to watch the Italy Wales game, meeting Italian tourists who followed the team to Australia & discussing Rugby participation rates in Italy.A great night had by all & yes they dropped a bit of cash in Cenberra.
Vince
Being involved in Rep 14 year old football I can also refer to the hundreds of kids who are turned away from the sport because we dont have the ability to accomodate in terms of elite coaching & environments. Under 14 PYL trials 120 kids turn up 15 get selected, SYL 100 turned up 15 are selected, the leftovers go to division 1, who can only accomodate 15. This leaves the others to park football or leave the sport. The other codes on the other hand are begging kids to play.
Mushi said | December 29th 2009 @ 7:43am | Report comment
“I was at the 2006 World Cup in Germany, and I can safely say that the tournament supersedes anything this country has ever seen.
And as someone who not only hails from the rugby league heartland that is western Sydney, but who has also watched the odd game of AFL in Melbourne, that’s a statement I feel qualified to make”
Supersedes means to replace, over rule, or make redundant. The use of this term is pure and unadulterated arrogance on behalf of the author and typifies his approach if you don’t like the A-league you’re a snob, if you don’t want the world cup you’re a xenophobe.
Living in NRL heartland and watching a few matches of AFL is a very low hurdle to qualify someone on if a sport should be superseded. In fact such a “qualification” just displays how myopic and self serving the rubbish this author peddles with impunity throughout this and other articles.
Here’s a question how about actually holding the administrators of the round ball game to task for clearly not doing the necessary ground work with all the stakeholders prior to this point?
Their approach has been rank amateur to this point, and if they carry this type of execution through to the world cup it will make the Danish look like masterminds of international gatherings.
amused said | December 29th 2009 @ 12:00pm | Report comment
hear hear. adrian m, the author of this article, et al tend to make hyperbolic, oversimplified arguments in favour of soccer. i’ve watched A league, played soccer as a younger player and acted in drama in high school.
this makes me qualified to rubbish the game because no one really cares except a vocal minority. that and the rather poor standard of A league here in this country means that it will never get to be the biggest game in Australia.
Marshall said | December 29th 2009 @ 12:06pm | Report comment
Amused, open your eyes and see who wrote the article before you go accusing the wrong person
jimbo said | December 29th 2009 @ 7:37pm | Report comment
Your drama training is obviously now paying dividends . . .
jimbo said | December 29th 2009 @ 10:19pm | Report comment
Football already is the biggest sport in this country and has been for a few years.
Football in this country just isn’t the A-League (which has only been running for 4 years).
Its got to do with participation, registered players, clubs, mums and dads, international TV audiences, national teams, World Cups etc etc.
Very shallow view of the world to just try and denigrate Australian football and the A-League attendances.
The average Socceroos attendances at Germany 06 is bigger than the best average NRL and AFL attendances combined. The international TV audiences were over 300 times more than any AFL or NRL grand final.
Springs said | December 29th 2009 @ 10:49pm | Report comment
What’s it got to do with Mums and Dads?
Rugby League in this country isn’t just the participation numbers (the only thing soccer has over it) and if touch is counted I would say League has bigger participation numbers. There may be more soccer clubs but the League clubs are much larger and hold more influence over the public. Ever heard of LEAGUEs clubs? Do you know how LEAGUEs clubs came about? Mums and dads? Most players play soccer because their mothers won’t let them play League (this is in NSW/QLD of course). Their fathers probably played League/AFL/Rugby when they were young and still follow their old club, that or their parents were born overseas. I doubt many international TV audiences watch the A-League. Each sport has 1 major national teams, they all have womens and junior national teams as well. Each sport has a World Cup, the League and Union World Cup and the AFL International Cup have all been played in Australia in the last decade. Australia has competed in each of the League and Union WC, winning the League WC 9 times and the Union WC twice. Australia has competed in 2 soccer world cups, soon to be 3.
The socceroo attendances at Germany has more to do with GERMAN sport. International TV has to do with International sport.
If soccer was the biggest sport in the country then the A-League would be the biggest comp in the country, simple.
jimbo said | December 31st 2009 @ 12:00am | Report comment
Ever heard of football clubs?
Most people who like football have never been to or will ever go to an A-League game, because football is a global game and there is more to choose from than just the A-League.
Its an international game and that’s why there is so many national football teams in Australia – mens, boys and womens.
I think you’ll find a lot of Australians and not Germans went to see the Socceroos play half way across the world.
TV ratings don’t just count Australians.
Mister Football said | December 31st 2009 @ 12:05am | Report comment
(Comment deemed poor by Roar community - click to read)
Springs said | December 31st 2009 @ 11:12am | Report comment
No, I have never heard of a Football Club in Australia. I hope you understand that I’m talking about the clubs with bars and pokies etc. Not the playing clubs. So soccer fans in Australia have more to choose from than the A-League? Can they just walk up and go to an EPL match can they? The only other thing they have is the Socceroos? And since no real soccer fans go to A-League games they would go to Internationals right? So how come they don’t sell out every match?
In Australia, TV ratings do only count Australians. There are as many national League teams as their is soccer teams.
Kurt said | December 30th 2009 @ 12:04am | Report comment
Fair enough Jimbo, not much to ask then that the biggest sport in the country bidding for the biggest sporting event in the world fund the construction of its own stadiums. That way soccer gets its legacy from the event and AFL/NRL continue disrupted. Everyone’s a winner.
jimbo said | December 31st 2009 @ 12:03am | Report comment
Kurt, excellent suggestion.
I believe the AFL and NRL don’t build their own stadiums either – they get the local, state and federal governments to build them and pay for them.
Athough the AFL continue to act as though they do own them.
Mister Football said | December 31st 2009 @ 12:07am | Report comment
(Comment deemed poor by Roar community - click to read)
Australian Football said | January 1st 2010 @ 10:59am | Report comment
disregarding the appalling grammar MR F… But Jimbo is 100% correct—-see Mike Cockerill’s SMH article—-AFL have received over $480m from government grants
Jim Wilson said | December 31st 2009 @ 12:17pm | Report comment
Both the NRL & AFL GFs had an Australian TV audience of just under 4 million each. 300 x 4 million = 1.2 billion.
The live global audience for the last soccer WC final was 134.5 million.
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/soccer/fifaworldcup/features/story/2009/12/02/spf-draw-appeal.html
MVDave said | December 31st 2009 @ 12:25pm | Report comment
JW
Why dont you read the article before taking facts that you want to see but aren’t actually in the article? The 134 million figure was the world wide audience for the 2006 WC DRAW…you know the same one they had earlier this month in SA where they draw out which teams are playing each other! Not the final!
Where did you get the 300 x 4 million?
Jim Wilson said | December 31st 2009 @ 12:53pm | Report comment
Oops – sorry about that.
Soccer WC 2006 Final 260 m
http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601077&sid=aOYdMOmxoV4c&refer=intsports
Surprisingly in dollar terms it is behind the Super Bowl & Summer Olympics
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=2749584#
AndyRoo said | December 31st 2009 @ 1:07pm | Report comment
Also from Initiative
Soccer is increasing its global domination, Initiative said, citing a 14 percent increase in the World Cup’s global live audience compared with 2002. This year’s event had a cumulative 5.9 billion audience in 54 countries, of which 41 percent were women.
The world cup finals are more than one game Jim, it’s 64 matches.
MVDave said | December 31st 2009 @ 1:12pm | Report comment
JW
Are you just on here to troll?
Did you actually read the article?
The Super Bowl was counted as a one game only value. The WC Final was counted as one of 30 days that the WC itself ran for. Therefore the WC value was totalled and then divided by 64 (number of games played in the finals) meaning they gave the WC final itself the same value as any of the group games??? Typical American flag waving.
The WC final comfortably beats the Gridiron Superbowl in a head to head in any measure you want to include ie TV viewers Superbowl around 100 million (vast majority in the US) whilst WC Final 260 – 750 million depending upon where you get the figures.
BTW Whats your point and relevance?
Jim Wilson said | December 31st 2009 @ 1:23pm | Report comment
Someone said the Soccer WC was 300 times bigger than the AFL GF. It’s not.
AndyRoo said | December 31st 2009 @ 1:38pm | Report comment
Jim
You provided links to show that it is!
300 x 4 million is 1.2bn
The world cup is 60 plus matches and according to Initiative a cumulative 5.9 billion audience in 54 countries . It’s watched in more than 54 countries by the way but ratings figures for a lot on non western countries aren’t counted.
Actually I guess you are right because according to your sources it’s not as big as 300 grand finals…it’s bigger!
AndyRoo said | December 31st 2009 @ 12:27pm | Report comment
Jim
You do know the World cup draw doesn’t contain any football?
It’s just the drawing up fo the fixtures, it’s not the World Cup final.
football said | December 29th 2009 @ 7:53am | Report comment
Kurt
The point is that they are economic assumptions & predictions that are required to forecast the impact, none of the estimates or arguments on either side will be correct, but they are necessary.
The games adminstrators have ten years to speak to the stakeholders.
Kurt said | December 29th 2009 @ 8:09am | Report comment
Yes, I understand that. So please refer me to a single article written by an economist NOT directly involved in bidding for the WC that clearly lays out the economic benefits of hosting such an event. I’m serious by the way – just the one. I’m yet to find a single independent source written by a serious economist that actually agrees with the claims made by supporters of the WC, Olympics, F1 etc.
Tifosi said | December 29th 2009 @ 7:54am | Report comment
The reason they havent included all the stakeholders is that the FFA know they dont have to convince anyone but the 24 members of the FIFA Executive Committee that make the final decision.
Thats why the FFA bid is all smoke and mirrors at the moment and its the reason why they have hired all these outside consultants who know how the game works.
Mushi said | December 29th 2009 @ 7:58am | Report comment
Hmm talk about myopic
Punter said | December 29th 2009 @ 8:37am | Report comment
Yes such shortsightedness from the FFA, instead of concentrating on the requirements of the NRL & AFL seasons in 9 or 13 years time they have been concentrating on a WC bid that is due next year. No wonder it’s a ‘failed’ bid.
football said | December 29th 2009 @ 8:31am | Report comment
Kurt
If you are genuinly interested in finding the answer look at the economic impact on Korea of the 2002 WC, & the GDP growth quoted by the Korean government after the event.
The interesting point about 2002 is that it is not only in our region but in our time zone, funny how Pascoe doesnt refer to it isn’t it.
Kurt said | December 29th 2009 @ 8:42am | Report comment
Yeah, that Pascoe. Clearly another AFL stooge afraid of the rise of soccer, masquerading as a Sydney-based business & finance writer.
MV Dave said | December 29th 2009 @ 9:07am | Report comment
Pascoe has no direct information regarding the WC 2018/2022 bid and is basing his assumptionson the 2000 Olympics which were held in Sydenee not the whole of Oz as a WC is.
For a comprehensive review of economic impact of a WC follow the attached link from the German Tourism Authority after WC 2006; http://www.germany-tourism.de/pdf/DZT_WM_Bilanz_Bro2008_Eng.pdf
K.B. said | December 29th 2009 @ 11:50am | Report comment
MVDave,
wonderful piece of information Dave, thanks very much for that, and we can now put to rest the absurdity of Kurt’s claims that the Football World Cup will have no economical value or benefit to Australia…
Kurt leave it up to those who are more qualified and better informed then you …
However, Dave if I may, can I divert your attention for a moment, to a more important issue of the day i.e. Chelsea’s lead in the EPL with a clear view of achieving a history making double… And SFC now three points ahead of Melb Vic with the GCU FC now poised to over take the Mel Vic for second spot…
This must be very concerning for you lads down south of the Murray with ‘the Jackal’ now blaming the ‘Scottish One’ for his lack of form for not allowing him to take control of the captaincy and with that all the penalty spot kicks that go with it…
MV Dave said | December 29th 2009 @ 12:11pm | Report comment
KB
It’s all part of the plan to take the decider down to the last game at SFC where we mug the sky blues and win the Championship
Now if Chelski can stop having so much luck! …
Kurt said | December 29th 2009 @ 10:13pm | Report comment
A press release from the German tourism board with the WC logo all over it focusing primarily on touchy-feely statements about how visitors to Germany ‘felt’ about the experience constitutes a “comprehensive review of the economic impact of a WC”? Oh dear. Anyway, my challenge still stands. Find me a single article or report written by a serious economist not connected with the event that supports the claimed economic benefits of a major sporting event such as the Olympics or WC. Just one. It can even be in German – although I’m not sure how many of you ‘global citizens’ can read a second language…
MV Dave said | December 30th 2009 @ 7:17am | Report comment
Hey Kurt you claim to be the one that needs convincing find your own articles…plenty have been put up but you choose to ignore them. l dont need convincing that the WC is the biggest and greatest sporting event on the planet…
BTW It wouldn’t matter what articles were put up you would still play your usual role as naysayer etc…l havent seen anything to convince me that the WC here wouldnt be the best ever…but hey Kurt better to troll on the Sokkah sites where at least you can be involved in something of interest which obviously isnt the case on the AFL blogs…only matters of interest there is who has been arrested, got drunk etc etc
K.B. said | December 30th 2009 @ 7:45am | Report comment
MVDave,
Chelsea go 5pt clear at the top of the EPL… D: please pass that onto Kurt, there’s a good lad…. From one global citizen to another….
Kurt said | December 30th 2009 @ 10:20am | Report comment
No worries Dave, the challenge still stands by the way. If you do come across a serious academic economic analysis showing that such events are actually beneficial please do post it – I’m yet to find a single one. Cheers.
football said | December 29th 2009 @ 9:34am | Report comment
No-one is actually claiming Pascoe as a AFL stooge, however his article lacks understanding of the WC & is essentially flawed.
And by the way, Dont kid yourself that our print & electronic media dont have vested interests in the promotion of certain football codes in OZ.
K.B. said | December 29th 2009 @ 9:41am | Report comment
You’re pissing in the wind Kurt… ha ha… Even if after the event and the true net profit was only $1:00—to have such a sporting event of this magnitude—the FIFA Football world cup with 24b cumulative TV audience with their eyes transfixed on Australia with the final being either played out at ANZ stadium Sydney or the MCG would be worth the effort… (Not to mention the $5b windfall that you disagree with)…
Have you emailed Price Waterhouse & Co. of their breakdown of costs and benefits yet…? You only have to ask them how they came to that conclusion being an expert on economics yourself … I’m sure they would oblige you with a rational synopsis… Or try the Aust Trade commission they have come out with a similar conclusion…
~~~~~
KB
Chuck said | December 29th 2009 @ 5:54pm | Report comment
The myopia is all on the side of those that sucked into the hyperbole without thinking first, witness the author of this article that confuses expense with profit.
The Olympics ran at a significant loss, the World Cup in the US in ‘94 ran at a significant economic loss, the last World Cup in Germany also failed to break even. How is it that the World Cup in Australia will magically produce a profit when, 1) we don’t have the stadiums and will need to spend LARGE sums of money on infrastructure, 2) it costs far more for travelers to get here, 3) several multibillion dollar industries in the AFL and NRL will experience significant disruption over two years, 4) the event will cause undoubted inflation that will hurt the average Australians back pocket. I have no doubt the World Cup will produce a hole in our economy by which the last stimulus package will pale in comparison.
Unlike the Author of this article, I do not experience cultural cringe and am quite comfortable with Australia’s standing in the world. We’re already on the map and punching above our weight thank you very much.
Beast-A-Tron said | December 29th 2009 @ 9:35pm | Report comment
God damnit the World Cup is bigger than any sport, can’t you simpletons understand!?. We don’t care about numbers, accounting principles or facts, the world cup is BIG and will AUTOMATICALLY provide economic benefits to Australia the likes of which we have never seen!! I don’t understand how, it just will damnit!
Blah you friggin myopic parochial AFL bogans are all alike, but you’ll soon been overtaken by the sleeping giant, smell the fear!
Punter said | December 29th 2009 @ 9:47pm | Report comment
The question must be asked. Why are you so against another sport having their WC in Australia? So sad!!!
Beast-A-Tron said | December 29th 2009 @ 10:06pm | Report comment
I’m not against any WC being held in Australia; merely shedding light on some of the arguments being pushed.
Punter said | December 29th 2009 @ 10:17pm | Report comment
After reading alot of your posts, you sure don’t seem too excited about having the WC in Australia.
I fully understand that you may have no interest in it, that’s fine, we all have our issues.
But why do you constantly have to put it down all the time, it really seems you have agenda..
Beast-A-Tron said | December 29th 2009 @ 10:27pm | Report comment
Put it down? Show me a quote that is an unfair criticism of the WC bid. Key word there, read carefully: “unfair”. You see, criticism is not inherently negative or biased, it actually can have a use believe it or not!
Bit rich for one human to accuse another human of agenda, but that is probably an argument for another day.
MV Dave said | December 29th 2009 @ 9:55pm | Report comment
“the World Cup is bigger than any sport” … gee finally got something right.
Beast-A-Tron said | December 29th 2009 @ 10:07pm | Report comment
Yeah biggest sure is best ain’t it. Might is right.
Australian Football said | January 1st 2010 @ 10:05am | Report comment
Gee two things right—-well done..
~~~~~~~
AF
Craig Eyles said | January 2nd 2010 @ 3:24pm | Report comment
KB
You forgot to mention that Germany’s World Cup made $4 billion AUD. The Euro is much more stronger than the Aussie dollar, so where does PriceWaterhouse get $5.3 billion? We’ll need 5 times the profit of Germany to get the estimated return based on Europeans spending over here.
And, BTW, may I enquire your connection to FIFA??
Etat
German World Cup contracts state that all future sporting events must be shut down in World Cup year. We’ll be known as the state of FIFAtoria.
Australian Football said | January 3rd 2010 @ 10:51am | Report comment
Craig,
yes I have joined the FIFA family website and any Football loving person can subscribe and become a FIFA member….
Price Waterhouse & Co. had spent six months, more or less, to formulise and present an independent report on the financials of the proposed FIFA 2018 Football World Cup bid and its long term benefits… So you could imagine it was a thorough thick financial document that was presented to the Feds and the FFA of the benefits and rewards of staging the biggest sporting event in the world on Australian soil…
If you have any queries about that, I suggest you should email Price Waterhouse & CO of any concerns you may have… I for one and all of us Australian Football family members are fine with the analysis i.e. the $5billion windfall outcome as reported…
~~~~~~~
now AF formerly KB
hazza said | December 29th 2009 @ 10:18am | Report comment
If the World Cup economic impact is such a flawed argument, then why is it that you always get G7 nations bidding for it ? . eg. USA JAPAN KOREA GERMANY ENGLAND. BRIC nations such as RUSSIA BRAZIL CHINA are bidding for a reason. USA, KOREA , JAPAN are bidding for the second time in such a short time span. WAKE UP YOU FOOLS. If the greatest economic powers in the world want the world cup then it cant be such a bad thing to have! Can it?
etat said | December 29th 2009 @ 10:30am | Report comment
Hosting a world cup would make a powerful statement to other governments in our region. This is one of the big reasons that Rudd, a former diplomat, is willing to committ government funds to the cause. For this reason they will want to put on a good show and won’t hold back on funding and new builds for stadia.
Stadia construction will mean that the impact on Aussie Rules and Rugby League would be minimal in terms of their respective seasons in 2018 or 2022. For league, there are any number of stadiums that can handle the requirements of the sport. For the AFL there wont be any impact as football and aussie rules aren’t played on the same stadia. Football uses rectangular stadia and aussie rules is played on an oval. If Australia wins the bid, funding will follow, new rectangular world cup stadia will be built – probably with scale back options. Developers will be pushing for new 60,000 plus stadia in Perth, Adelaide and Melbourne with a probable post event scale back option to 25 to 35,000. The “new” stadium in Melbourne would be built as a new build or extension to swan street. By 2022 I don’t think there’ll be a need for a second stadium in Melbourne – the MCG is not rectangular and Docklands is a political mess. There wont be any impact to AFL as there won’t be any need for any “AFL” stadia. This means the AFL will run as usual only it will have a fantastic, once in a lifetime opportunity to expose the local game to the world. This kind of opportunity can’t be bought.
The end result of a successful bid will be that each continental capital will have an elite level AFL / cricket oval stadium (these already exist in the 5 capitals) and an elite level rectangular football / rugby league / rugby union stadium. Brisbane and Sydney already have this. Perth, Adelaide and Melbourne will be supplied with new rectangular stadia of the right standard. The majority of funding for these new stadia will come from the Australian Government so the states wont have to whinge much. The feds are driving the bid and will do most of the heavy financial lifting if the bid is successful.
pH said | December 29th 2009 @ 1:16pm | Report comment
if only there was some accuracy to your comments etat, maybe the government will restructure the current bid that is so reliant on AFL and NRL stadia, if what you say with all these stadia comes true however, the cost to the taxpayer will be staggering.
hazza said | December 29th 2009 @ 10:45am | Report comment
Have a look at the economic impact of the2003 Rugby World Cup and multiply it by a factor of ten.
rugbyfuture said | December 29th 2009 @ 10:57am | Report comment
none of the leagueys or aussie rules people care about that though
Kurt said | December 29th 2009 @ 10:56pm | Report comment
zero multiplied by ten is still zero.
mahony said | December 29th 2009 @ 11:25am | Report comment
With every post in this thread Mike’s article is more relevant than before….
K.B. said | December 29th 2009 @ 11:55am | Report comment
And he is a SFC supporter as well…
Craig Eyles said | December 29th 2009 @ 12:02pm | Report comment
Re ; The boffins estimated $5.3 Bill windfall. Is that AFTER the $3 bil+ compo to the AFL/NRL, affected businesses within a 20 minute radius that have to close doors, taxpayer costs to redesign city advertising, extra poilce to cater for FIFA changes to liquor & retailing laws that would cost more than the recent “Operation Unite” & not to mention the $50 Mil+ wasted in this bid, AFL/NRL clubs going broke & the footy tipping contests.
And the comparisons between Nadal & the World Cup is a bad example. How about the denying of our Grand Prix & Melbourne Cup to be allowed to promote events while FIFA are invading our lives?? That’s the real issues.
And to compare Germany to hre is also outrageous. Since when is the World Cup in Europe interfering in any sporting fixtures when it’s played in their summer??
Domestic debate has always been dodged by the FFA, who don’t even know the hell what’s going to happen, but yet some pencil pushers have added the figures??
Absolutely & totally illogical & flawed.
etat said | December 29th 2009 @ 12:55pm | Report comment
FIFA can’t prevent promotion of events like the Melbourne Cup or Grand Prix. Did you just make that up? And why would you be worried about changes to liquor laws? I can imagine that you might not be able to serve Heinekin at a Fosters sponsored venue or fanzone the same as for ever other event.
And what about extra police? Is that the extra police I saw at the last big sporting event / music festival / parade etc I went to.
What’s your point Craig – that something will happen?
pH said | December 29th 2009 @ 1:22pm | Report comment
As I read it in the press the $5.3billion is income, the costs were estimated at $2.2billion – (correct me please if someone can find the original FFA costings). But subsequent figures of costs of $4billion to $8billion have been bandied about (eg by Jeff Kennett – ok he’s a Hawthorn president, but he is a former premier with a hard nosed view of costs if any Victorians recall his years as premier are reading will testify).
See my post below as to why oil scarcity in the next decade needs to be factored in. Unfortunately it will mutiply costs and slash income for any 2022 WC at this far southern end of the world.
K.B. said | December 29th 2009 @ 2:04pm | Report comment
PH,
I have some information for you
~~~~~~~
Football dares to dream
Wednesday, 10 December 2008
Mr Frank Lowy with Prime Minister Kevin Rudd
© Getty Images Football Federation Australia (FFA) Chairman, Frank Lowy AC, said today that FFA could now “dare to dream” as he welcomed the Australian Government’s $45.6 million in support for FFA’s bid to host the 2018 FIFA World Cup.
“Hosting the World Cup would bring unprecedented benefit to Australia, to the Asian region and to football,” said Mr Lowy.
“It will contribute to nation building by increasing economic activity and revenues to help provide a legacy of improved infrastructure and facilities across Australia.”
Click here to view the Federal Government’s Official Release
An independent report from PricewaterhouseCoopers estimates the economic impact of Australia hosting the 2018 FIFA World Cup and the 2017 FIFA Confederations Cup is a $5.3 billion increase in GDP and a cumulative employment effect of 74,000 jobs.
“Hosting a major international event such as the FIFA World Cup also brings other substantial benefits,” Mr Lowy said.
These include:
* adding to Australia’s international prestige and reputation
* the capacity to promote Australia’s regions and cities
* the potential to motivate children to participate in sport leading to long term improved health outcomes
* promoting a healthy lifestyle
* providing an impetus for initiating improved environmental practices, and
* providing an impetus for the creation of cultural and social events.
“It also positions Australia as a ‘can do’ country which is terribly important in this century,” Mr Lowy said.
He added that he believed Australia could win the bid.
“If I didn’t think so, I wouldn’t be here.
“I wouldn’t ask the Government to support us for a pipedream.
“This is not an impossible dream. It is very achievable,” said Mr Lowy.
“While I understand that there is a view emanating from Europe that it may well be the turn of Europe to be the hosts in 2018, the fact is football is a world game.
“Europe has unquestionably been the focus of football growth and development for much of the past 80 years, but the future of football is in the ‘new world’ – that is, the developing and growing regions of the world such as Asia.”
Mr Lowy said that the Asian Football Confederation is the fastest growing region in world football, as well as the nations of Asia having very good long term economic prospects.
“Our focus is on 2018 because it is a powerful way to develop football in the Asian region and Australia has the capacity to host a major sporting event in this timeframe.”
“Bidding for the World Cup, and winning it, is an investment which will pay dividends for the nation and future generations of Australians,” Mr Lowy said.
The Australian Government has pledged $45.6 million over three years in support of the FFA’s bid to bring the 2018 FIFA World Cup to Australia.
~~~~~~~
Also the report from the government…. see link
http://www.footballaustralia.com.au/site/_content/document/00000990-source.pdf
etat said | December 29th 2009 @ 3:51pm | Report comment
Mention of the MCG and Telstra Dome (Docklands Stadium) looks like filler in this media release. Both are listed as examples of the stadiums we have ready to go but I don’t think there is a serious push to use either. The MCG is hallowed sporting ground but it is a poor venue for football. Docklands is a political minefield. If the bid is successful Melbourne will have a proper rectangular football stadium built.
If things go to plan none of the ovals the AFL uses will be used during an Australian hosted World Cup. The AFL will go on as usual and wont be disrupted in any meaningful way. This means no compo for the AFL.
bever fever said | December 29th 2009 @ 4:24pm | Report comment
Yep funny how they mention Docklands when the owners have distinctly told them they cannot use it, in fact FFA took O/S reporters through it after being told by Docklands management that the stadium will not be available to FIFA.
Seeing as this is really a Sydney push by Lowy they probably wont use the MCG for the final but this IMO is a big mistake, the MCG is the premier premier sporting ground in this country and one of best in the world.
jimbo said | December 29th 2009 @ 5:26pm | Report comment
FFA don’t need any Victorian stadia to hold a WC in Australia.
In fact the less AFL people involved the better . . .
etat said | December 29th 2009 @ 5:49pm | Report comment
I suspect the dog and pony show with Docklands was to put something tangible in front of guests. It looks better when there’s some concrete and steel to dress up a bid. The whole argument with the AFL about use of docklands – which the AFL has a pretty strong claim to from what I understand – would be best avoided if they just build a new stadium or extend the swan st bubble. If we win the bid I think this is what will happen.
The MCG is without doubt one of the worlds great stadiums but as it’s an oval I think it’s not the best stadium for football. If the MCG ends up as one of the stadiums used it will on the back of its fine history and not as a good venue for football.
bever fever said | December 29th 2009 @ 5:49pm | Report comment
Jimbo, i have seen you post this time and time again and quite frankly its not going to happen just because you write it 100 times.
The soccer world cup if this country gets it will have quite a few games in Victoria, everyone knows it, it will not go ahead without the premier stadium in this country getting its share of games.
Please stop deluding yourself.
jimbo said | December 29th 2009 @ 7:57pm | Report comment
BF,
Victorians are the ones deluding themselves and in particular Melbourne AFL supporters if they think they can stop FIFA holding a WC in Australia by not letting anyone else use Etihad or the MCG for 8 weeks.
For the amount of money the AFL are demanding in compensation, the Federal government will build 3 or 4 demountable rectangular stadiums that will be shared with the ARU and NRL.
Melbourne is not the sporting capital of Australia, it is the AFL capital of Australia.
bever fever said | December 29th 2009 @ 9:48pm | Report comment
Jimbo if Melbourne is not the sports capital of this country then please enlighten us on what city is.
I dont live in melbourne but they have the current AFL, NRL. Aleague, Netball, Basketball champions they also have the premier horse race, and Formula 1.
They also have the MCG, which by far is the countrys premier football/cricket stadium.
bever fever said | December 29th 2009 @ 10:51pm | Report comment
Well Jimbo… i am waiting, If Melbourne is not the sporting capital of Australia what city is then ??.
Art Sapphire said | December 29th 2009 @ 12:43pm | Report comment
What better way to recover from the Christmas festivities than with another lovely WC debate. Considering today’s topic is global citizens, I think it most appropriate to mention that I have a friend who is currently working on a education project in of all places, Ghana.
He reports – “The project is going well been doing lots of digging,rendering and painting so the school is nearly finished. The children are quite a joy as well. Even though they think the ‘Black Stars’ are invincible and will win our group and then the Cup.”
As you can see, Australia is already in the minds on these Ghanaian kids only by just drawing them in the Group Stage.
If we host the WC in 2018-22, we will be on the minds of millions of boys in Africa and around the world as they are playing on their dirt pitches and scoring the winning goals in their own make believe world cups.
Forgetmenot said | December 29th 2009 @ 12:59pm | Report comment
Whoa … this article does express alot of hatred.
I thought we had gone past the stage of name-calling (ie insular, bogan). However the writer of this article still feels the need to inform his readers in a subtle way that people who do not follow soccer are uneducated and backwards.
Perhaps this writer should educate himself more on the subject of the demographics of each codes followers.
Have you noticed that there are more articles questioning the soccer World Cup bid from an intelligent point of view, than there are ones supporting it?
K.B. said | December 29th 2009 @ 1:34pm | Report comment
You may not have noticed but the bid is in with FIFA—why would a football person write an article about putting in a WC bid…? We have already achieved that, now we are waiting on the result of that bid—now do you get it…?
Forgetmenot said | December 29th 2009 @ 3:53pm | Report comment
The bid is still in process all the small details worked out.
Does the 14th of May mean anything to you?
Do you even get it, at all?
K.B. said | December 29th 2009 @ 6:30pm | Report comment
So didn’t December 10 mean anything to you…? We had to summit our intentions to bid by then before the 2010 World cup draw then have until may to complete our bid book… Thank you…
http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,26464521-5019088,00.html
pH said | December 29th 2009 @ 1:02pm | Report comment
Mike – you put your views honestly and respectfully which is very welcome.
As an AFL (and Rugby and cricket) fan I don’t fully agree with you. The reason is not that I don’t want us to get the World Cup (I would love to see Australia host a World Cup but one that is fair to the other codes and cost-effective), nor that I don’t think local sports like AFL and NRL shouldn’t have to compete with Soccer including Soccer’s international dimension.
The reason I dislike the bid as it currently stands – is it’s unfairness to the FFA’s business competitors and it’s cost. As others have pointed out the only financial analysis done so far is by a consulting firm hired by the FFA. What are they going to say? True independent hard headed and unemotional analysis is needed.
The FFA bid budgeted $10million for compensation to the AFL, NRL and ARU. That is next to insulting. The full costs of the bid to the competing codes may be much closer to $500million. An AFL season turns over $3.4billion per year and employs 20,000 people for instance. Effects on long term sponsorships, TV rights and memberships of such a major disruption to a season will spill over several years.
The cost of building and upgrading stadia that in regional centres may never ever be filled again is also a worry. These costs will escalate with the crunch on raw materials and in particular oil. “Peak Oil” should be essential reading for everyone. Air fares in 2022 may be for the very rich, and most businesses doing their “travelling” by video link rather than the cost of sending a 100kg to the other side of the world. Long haul tourism will be hit hard as oil is rationed for agriculture and mining and more important goods transport. Australia will be hit hard by peak oil, we may not get many foreign football fans at all coming all this way.
Before you dismiss “peak oil” just google it, and google it with “air travel”…and read some of the albeit frightening extrapolations by oil engineers and former big oil executives.
Which is one reason why I raised (Jesse Fink, soccer writer for The Roar also raised the idea) the idea of a joint bid with Indonesia – which would minimise disruption to other codes, greatly reduce extra stadia building costs and maybe get more Asian fans coming by rail and short haul air travel via Indonesia. The logistics of cooperation with Indonesia would be a mixed factor – difficult but on the plus side important for increased cooperation with our huge population neighbour – a long term benefit (that goes beyond being the focus for the eyes of the world for 1 month in 2022) in this challenging century!
My article: http://www.theroar.com.au/2009/12/18/australia-indonesia-world-cup-2022/
Jesse Fink’s article: http://www.theroar.com.au/2009/10/09/time-for-australia-and-indonesia-to-unite/
Joint bids may not be favoured by FIFA but they seem to be increasingly common and successful as the costs of hosting UEFA and World Cups escalate for single nations. Spain+Portugal is a hot competitor against England for 2018.
The reason the government has taken over the bid is I think all the above cost and equity to other codes problems are becoming clear how costly and complex they are. Pity the bid wasn’t better organised from the start.
Footbal Person said | December 29th 2009 @ 1:09pm | Report comment
You know, if you think about it, Frank Lowy is Jesus. Dont beleive me ? Well you see, Johny Warren is God now that he is up there
. He had a dream to see the world cup come to Australia, so he sent Frank lowy ( are they related ?) down to Earth to get it for us. Franky is Jesus.
And no this isn’t a serious comment, just thought you might like a laugh after your fight, Brave football warriors.
jimbo said | December 29th 2009 @ 1:30pm | Report comment
Haven’t you read the report from David Godly in the South African Times.
Following a successful appeal by Peter Foncesca the Chairman of the South African AFL, the FIFA World Cup in South AFrica 2010 has been cancelled because it will disrupt the South African AFL season.
libero said | December 29th 2009 @ 1:42pm | Report comment
As an outsider looking in, having four major football codes is also a major plus for Australia. It shows the nation has a healthy appetite for sports and what better way to satisfy this hunger then by holding the largest footballing tournament in the world there. Regardless of the current debate, I have little doubt in my mind that Australia will indeed host a WC in the near future. I say this as someone who has involvement in the game for the last three decades and on several continents. Stay positive, your sporting traditions/culture and vitality is admired the world over and put your national bid in excellent stead. Your love of sports will be justly rewarded.
bever fever said | December 29th 2009 @ 2:37pm | Report comment
Here is a article that may be a bit a bit of interest for not only soccer and footy people but general sports lovers.
http://www.worldfootynews.com/article.php/20091227235900214
MV Dave said | December 29th 2009 @ 3:01pm | Report comment
Wow an AFL writer pens an article, on an AFL website sprouting on about a game 99.9% of the worlds population dont even know exists…yaaaawn!
Art Sapphire said | December 29th 2009 @ 3:11pm | Report comment
Thanks Bever – I just wasted the last few minutes reading the nonsensical ramblings of an AFL evangelist and football ignoramus.
Allow to quote some of this delusionary mumbo jumbo.
“While the AFL is very much focused on Australia because its audience is there, it has shown in the past that is willing to upset its major stakeholders in order to achieve its goal of national if not global domination. The AFL has very cleverly designed its institutions so that all potential competitors, from clubs to leagues must agree that AFL is the “keeper of the code”. If the AFL decides to go international, it won’t have the institutional impediments that soccer, basketball, American football, and baseball face.”
The problem is that the author does not realise that the AFL’s biggest impediment of all on its quest to go global – INDIFFERENCE
I posted a despatch from my friend who happens to be in Ghana earlier today. There is all the perspective you need.
I just can’t see millions of African kids dreaming of playing in an AFL Grand Final, but playing for their country in the World Cup is a different matter entirely..
bever fever said | December 29th 2009 @ 3:21pm | Report comment
Art Sapphire said “Thanks Bever” ….. It’s a Pleasure Art.
Forgetmenot said | December 29th 2009 @ 3:55pm | Report comment
You really are very short sighted.
Do you not have any vision of what can happen with a bit of determination.
A question,
Can one man change the world?
Art Sapphire said | December 29th 2009 @ 4:21pm | Report comment
forgetmenot – a bit of determination can make you punch a few keystrokes on your keyboard.
I recognise your determination and I hope its reciprocated in kind.
Now, to the big one.
Can one man change the world?
I don’t have aspirations to change the world but with a name like forgetmenot, you might have other ideas.
Good Luck
Glen said | December 29th 2009 @ 10:38pm | Report comment
Very interesting article… I always wondered why the yanks (the world champions of huge things) don’t have massive stadiums for the NFL and a distinct lack of overt sponsorship on their “uniforms”. Answered a few questions I never really had the nouse to follow up. I think N Korea holds the record for the world’s largest stadium and you don’t get a lot of sponsorship opportunities there.
The other point I’d like to make is about participation rates.
Soccer holds the record world-wide bar none. More kids play soccer in the US and Australia for example than any other sport, but it can’t hold them past about 13 or 14.
Why this is so is due to many factors… they are no longer influenced by “Soccer Moms”.
They can’t ever meet their playing heroes unlike AFL, NRL and the ARU where they can actually go down to their local club and get an autograph or attend training etc.
Machismo kicks in with puberty and showing off to the girls is much easier in a full contact sport (sorry guys… soccer just doesn’t cut it when it comes to tough).
I don’t pretend to have the actual figures, and I’m guessing FFA are not forthcoming on this one, but I reckon soccer loses about 70-80% of the kids. No other sport would have this drop out rate.
MV Dave said | December 30th 2009 @ 7:21am | Report comment
“I don’t pretend to have the actual figures, and I’m guessing” err bout sums up your post.
Jeb said | December 30th 2009 @ 10:24am | Report comment
i stopped reading when he said soccer wasn’t popular in Japan or South Africa etc…
Lindommer said | December 29th 2009 @ 2:50pm | Report comment
“When I was in high school, I dreamed of travelling the globe.”
You should’ve take up rugby, Mike, you can get a scratch game in most parts of the world. Why, in places like America, Canada, Chile, Germany, Hong Kong, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Portugal, Russia, South Africa, Sri Lanka and Tunisia they’ll even PAY you to play.
BN said | December 29th 2009 @ 4:05pm | Report comment
Says the supporter of competion that so big they can’t even see it on free to air (or watch it in winter). If the is game really that big they shouldn’t need to stop the NRL/AFL competitions.
And all this rubbish about being global citizens. What makes this place so great is all the differences.The true definition of a global citizen is one the can express thier own identity while interacting peacfully with all the different cultures. Face it, as a sports brand here, Soccor (especially the A League) is a rather small fish and Me, like others don’t regard the World Cup as more important then their domestic NRL/AFL seasons. So if the World Cup can be run without interupting the local codes, I’m all for it, and maybe even attend a game or two. But when they ram it down peoples throats by trying to dictate when the more popular local codes can or can’t play shows no respect and is not the behaviour of a true global citizen, but of bully whos opinon of ones self far outweighs their worth.
Punter said | December 29th 2009 @ 4:26pm | Report comment
They don’t need to stop AFL/NRL competitions to hold the WC here in Australia, this is just something thrown up by the NRL/AFL media & officials.
I for one wouldn’t really care if the NRL/AFL season were interupted for the World cup. Both AFL & NRL have the best players in the owrld playing in Australia, not that there is alot of other competition, so I would like to see the best players in the world in my sport & the World Cup would be perfect.
Roger Rational said | December 29th 2009 @ 4:19pm | Report comment
Can we assume that Mike Tuckerman celebrated long into the night when McDonald’s opened its first branch in western Sydney and validated him as a “global citizen”?
Come on Mike, you’re talking rubbish. If you want to be worldly, then wear a beret and read some Sartre. Football is a sport like any other and investing it with some mythical “worldliness” tells us everything about your own cultural cringe and nothing whatever about the game itself.
Art Sapphire said | December 29th 2009 @ 4:32pm | Report comment
Does Mike have to read Satre in French to be truly global? Or can he read it in English?
Is existentialism is the fast food of philosophy?
If only Satre was alive today to give us the answer.
Albert Camus was a goalkeeper by the way
Roger Rational said | December 29th 2009 @ 4:57pm | Report comment
I think for Mike to consider himself a truly global citizen, he would have to invite Sartre to dine with him in western Sydney. They would wear matching berets, share each other’s snails, and talk at length about the absurdity of human existence whilst gesticulating wildly and smoking Gitanes by the dozen. But of course this alone would not be sufficient. It would also be necessary for any Australian writer hoping to eat that night to be banned from any restaurant within a ten mile radius. A live stream of the conversation would be projected into every Australian home so that the poor, ignorant suburban population (with their false consciousness and parochial mentality) could be turned into true global citizens. Then afterwards we could all attend an Australia v France football match and weep in ecstasy at the sheer worldliness of it all.
Mr cheese said | December 30th 2009 @ 12:03pm | Report comment
His name was Sartre. With the letter ‘r’.
Jean-Paul Sartre.
Existentialism is NOT like fast food. Have you read the myth of Sisyphus ?? Camus at his best, in my opinion.
Camus understood: the point of life is women, football and books.
Perfect.
bever fever said | December 29th 2009 @ 4:35pm | Report comment
(Comment deemed poor by Roar community - click to read)
Punter said | December 29th 2009 @ 5:23pm | Report comment
And you were complaining about a Rugby Union fan trolling in a AFL thread. Ummmmm…..
Beast-A-Tron said | December 29th 2009 @ 10:19pm | Report comment
It is a cross-code thread, expressing premeditated views on the AFL & NRL. Care to use logic to explain why an AFL or NRL fan should not comment here?
Punter said | December 30th 2009 @ 5:59am | Report comment
I totally agree, that Rugby fan had every right to be on the AFL thread.
Beast-A-Tron said | December 30th 2009 @ 9:40am | Report comment
You misread, you are not in agreement with me, so don’t misrepresent what I said.
If I recall correctly, the AFL thread was exactly that, a purely AFL thread, about draft selections or some such. No mention of Rugby, or any deliberate views on its governing body. Then Mr.Rugby Troll, who is looking for a fight, comes along and takes a swipe and was duly served. It is incomparable to this thread.
When an incendiary article is written, don’t start crying when fans of other codes rightly criticise it.
Bottom line: everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but certainly not entitled to their own facts.
Judging on previous comments, you’ll need to look up ‘incendiary’ and ‘incomparable’ in the dictionary.
Dan said | December 29th 2009 @ 5:05pm | Report comment
Actually, membership in the United Nations makes us “global citizens”. It’s worth remembering that soccer, while a very big sport, is still just a sport. Lets not lose sight of reality here by pretending playing a game makes one more “cultured”.
Roger Rational said | December 29th 2009 @ 5:13pm | Report comment
Actually, there is no such thing as a “global citizen”. It is a meaningless term put about by airy fairy dreamers like Tuckerman who think they can create Utopia on Earth by placing a “Save the Whale” sticker on their car window.
But yeah, I agree with your main point – the idea that following soccer magically makes you a more cultured, worldly person shouldn’t convince anyone over the age of fourteen.
bever fever said | December 29th 2009 @ 5:16pm | Report comment
Personally i like the bumper sticker “land rights for gay whales”.
Dan said | December 30th 2009 @ 12:15am | Report comment
Well, I used the UN as my example due to the fact that it is an organisation that meanigfully engages its member states on a vast array of issues and gives them power to affect decisions within it (although the reality is closer to a bunch of mob bosses sitting at a table – the one with the most guns and cash gets the most say). In that sense Australia is a “citizen” within a global system. But yes, there is no such thing as a “global citizen” in reality and there never will be unless we manage to form a stable form of global government that is formed in a highly utilitarian spirit… in other words it’s not going to happen.
Springs said | December 30th 2009 @ 9:53am | Report comment
I would say a global citizen is anyone who lives on the globe.
Billo said | December 29th 2009 @ 10:20pm | Report comment
“And in a rapidly globalised world, hosting a World Cup would make us truly global citizens.”
It’s a long time since I’ve read such a silly statement.
We are all global citizens, but we should celebrate our differences as much as, if not more, than the things we have in common.
Australia is a great country partly because we are not afraid to be different from the rest.
The sports that most of us enjoy are, frankly, more exciting, skilful and athletic than the so-called global game, and I write as someone who was at Stamford Bridge yesterday to watch Chelsea’s rather less than thrilling win against Fulham.
I thought we had long ago given up the cultural cringe, but the FFA seems to be trying to revive it.
If we hold the World Cup in Australia, it should be held on our terms, or not at all. Let’s not prostrate ourselves before Sepp Blatter, begging for his patronage.
I would actually like to see it happen, although I’m not sure it will, because of issues like time zones and the revenues associated with beaming games into the major markets at non-peak times.
“The football World Cup should be right up our alley, so it’s a shame that so many cloak their views in quasi-nationalist rhetoric to claim that football is a foreign sport and that parochial interests must be protected.”
So protecting our own interests is parochial?
It’s also what governments, even Labor ones, are supposed to bloody well do!
jimbo said | December 29th 2009 @ 10:34pm | Report comment
Obviously not a football fan if you didn’t think Chelsea’s win was thrilling.
Being a global citizen starts with being a good Australian citizen.
That also means having an open mind about all things Australian including our national football team, who continue to do this country proud.
Holding the Olympics, commonwealth games, the Swimming World Cup or the Rugby League or Rugby Union World Cup was never a threat to Australia’s freedom, so why is this World Cup?
Kurt said | December 30th 2009 @ 12:16am | Report comment
Any of those events demand that the AFL and NRL vacate their stadiums for two months in the middle of their competitions Jimbo? Nope, didn’t think so. As has been said many times previously (and will be said many more times before it penetrates any soccer-supporting skulls) the issue is not that FFA are bidding for the WC. Fine, great, go for your life (although as stated previously please spare me the economic benefits arguments so flimsy a year ten accounting student can shoot them down). The issue is that they are demanding the exclusive use of stadiums primarily built and paid for by AFL and NRL revenues. Saying that the AFL and NRL can continue operating during the WC, but they can’t use their main stadiums is of course absurd, and effectively amounts to a shut down.
The solution, once more, is abundantly clear and elegantly simple: Soccer funds the construction of its own stadiums for the WC. You get your event and importantly a legacy. Us non-global citizens get to watch our little competitions. Problem solved.
Punter said | December 30th 2009 @ 6:22am | Report comment
This is where you have your facts wrong. The NRL doesn’t have a great issue with it because most of the NRL clubs play in their own suburbia grounds. They only play in the bigger grounds at the request of the bigger grounds in order to generate more revenue for the club (not the ground).
Most fans would prefer their suburbia grounds as it creates more atmosphere as Rugby League crowds are not like AFL crowds in attendances.
Some teams may be affected like Sydney Roosters & Brisbane, but not too hard to look for alternatives.
As for the AFL it will only be the MCG that will be affected as the 2nd ground in Melbourne is not finalised. Is it that hard to find alternative grounds for 2 months instead of the MCG?
Kurt said | December 30th 2009 @ 6:55am | Report comment
Well that’s the key question isn’t it – which ground (if any) will be the second Melbourne WC stadium? The AFL has already come out and said they’re happy (well maybe not ‘happy’, but you know what I mean) to vacate the MCG for two months and stop the competition for a month as long as they don’t lose Docklands. But remember it was the FFA giving tours of Docklands to visiting journalists saying “won’t this be a great ground for the WC!” that started all of this. But if that was all just a clever ruse then no problems, everybody’s happy. Although soccer still gets no legacy, so perhaps not everyone.
K.B. said | December 30th 2009 @ 7:25am | Report comment
Kurt,
if you were a good Australian Citizen you would want this for Australia… But nope you’re not are you..
Outcomes from the 2006 FIFA World Cup in Germany speak for themselves:
2 million international visitors
85,000 people employed
More than 3.3 million spectators
Cumulative television audience of 26 billion, broadcast in 214 countries
The Government is looking forward to working with the FFA to kick off a world class,
competitive bid that will maximise Australia’s opportunity to host the biggest sporting
event on the globe in 2018.
Lindommer said | December 30th 2009 @ 5:37am | Report comment
I, too, have been to Stamford Bridge to watch Chelsea in a “rather less than thrilling win”. But this time it was so much less is was a draw, against Arsenal in January 1985. The crowd were more entertaining than the players.
My catholic tastes in sport have led me to watch AFL in Melbourne and Sydney, rugby league in Sydney and Brisbane, soccer in Sydney and London and rugby in Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Ireland and Scotland. And that’s only the football codes. The cultural cringe shown by many soccer fans is something I thought we’d outgrown in Australia and will be a major factor in Australia’s bid to win the World Cup; if other football fans have to compromise their enjoyment of their chosen code in any way I can’t see it getting up.
Phil E Buster said | December 30th 2009 @ 12:12am | Report comment
more exciting, skilful and athletic than the so-called global game – that rules out cricket then…so two goals in two minutes does nothing for you? Reminds me of the occasional Aussies I see at Stamford Bridge loudly bleating how AFL is so much better. Bloody tourists…
Dan said | December 30th 2009 @ 12:19am | Report comment
If he’s an AFL fan, then no, two goals in two minutes wouldn’t impress him. But you’re right that it’s absolutely huge in soccer and impressive to watch. Personally though I just wouldn’t ever go to watch a soccer game in the UK though… just too much crap associated with it, Rugby is just a much easier game to watch in your country. As Brian Moore said in your papers recently in reference to commentary about Rugby from soccer folk: “When football can stage an event featuring four London clubs at Wembley with no segregation of fans, with freely available alcohol in the ground and a minimal police presence – that’s when we might start listening to moral lecturing from the round-ball game.”
MV Dave said | December 30th 2009 @ 8:09am | Report comment
Much prefer the linked article when looking at Rugby v Football folk;
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/3985/
AndyRoo said | December 30th 2009 @ 8:52am | Report comment
I read that Brian Moore piece and I think he missed the point why people were so keen to have a go at Rugby about the blood gate affair. It was never about football being better but more the umbridge that columns like that Moore one provide. Continuosly putting yourself on a high horse makes people relish your fall.
And the last half of Moores piece was just that….. and he will be shocked when crowd trouble at any london rugby game though minor would now attract more press.
It’s exactly the same in Australia with rugby fans always bleeting on about League player behavior, then something like quade happens you see all the mungos come out and say “your players are just as bad as ours” but Rugby fans live in denial.
Art Sapphire said | December 30th 2009 @ 9:36am | Report comment
Rugby Union supporters chronically suffer from a condition called “football envy”. They spend their lives fixating on how their game is unloved by the great unwashed.
“Some fair-weather fans are even hoping to reinvent rugby as “the new football”, to serve the same purpose of promoting an ersatz national unity and some wholesome role models to the young. Frankly, that seems a tall order for a dull minority sport of which it was once said that a bomb under the West car park at Twickenham on a Test match day could set back the cause of fascism in England for a generation.”
Mick Hume in The Times October 2003
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/article991515.ece
Dan said | December 30th 2009 @ 10:44am | Report comment
MVDave,
The article is probably fairly reflective of the atmosphere in England, given class is still a very real issue there, but I honestly don’t think it’s applicable in most other Rugby countries (except for South Africa), even the ones around it. In Ireland Rugby is the only sport that unites both north and south and in Wales it is quintessentially working class (but the crowds are still not violent – why is that?).
Andy,
Perhaps that’s why people are so keen to have a go at soccer in this country when anything goes wrong (police called in for crowd violence etc)?? Fans of the country’s biggest codes AFL and RL are sick of soccer folk carrying on about how cultured and sophisticated they all are for watching “the world game”. As you say, when you’re constantly putting yourself on a high horse of course people will relish your fall.
Art,
Personally I don’t really envy soccer. I live in a country where it’s a minority sport that has little money and has to be played in the off season of the other professional football codes to ensure it doesn’t lose its viability. I don’t envy the international scope of it either… again, just too much baggage. I still remember the Japanese authorities having to super-glue the stones on railroads near stadiums and have special forces teams on standby in order to prevent the thugs (which they predicted would be mostly English) starting shit. I can travel the world without giving a toss about the sport they play in the countries I visit (though I did attend several baseball games in Japan while living there – something different).
Furthermore, I’d say that it’s more than a little hypocritical claiming that taking some English rugby fans would “set back the cause of facism in England”, given the neo-nazi scum that populate many of the Premier League clubs. Out-group hostility is our genes, but the thugs who claim to be “fans” of many of England’s top sides take it to new levels… it’s no secret who that the BNP have more than a couple hooligan groups on their side.
Also, Hume laughing it the prospect of “dull” Rugby having any unifying and positive effect on the English populace reminds me an awful lot of numerous AFL commentators in this country who scoffed at the notion of a sport like soccer, which they liken to watching paint dry (and while watching English Rugby can be boring, the numerous 0-0 draws that soccer produces define the term), could have any real scope for support in a country like Australia outside of helping in the formation of a new breed of soccer gangs.
To sum up for you guys, I’m primarily a RL and RU man, but I happily jumped on the soccer bandwagon in the last world cup. Afterall, I have a strong connection with Japan and it was good fun to be able to give shit to all my Japanese mates again after we had already beaten them in the baseball at the olympics. But personally, I simply cannot stand all this rubbish about following soccer representing some kind of cultural sophistication. There’s a reason the A-League doesn’t get the biggest TV deals in this country: Australians have choice. 99% of the other countries in the world don’t. They have soccer, and that’s it (though I suppose you could argue that one 6th of the globe has Cricket – India – and thats it). Sport is like religion though, it’s very hard to change trends in any one country.
Punter said | December 30th 2009 @ 11:28am | Report comment
‘99% of the other countries in the world don’t’.????
While I agree with some of your sentiments prior to this comment & kept me slightly interested in what you were saying, it was this comment that smacks of arrogance.
Why do you think other countries have no choice, is it pure ignorance or just a throw away statement?
In England they have every option we do apart from AFL, same as France. Even in India while Cricket is king, they have a huge footballing pedigree, same as Hockey. Italy while a great footballing nation, also have RU & are hugely into motor racing.
I could go on & on. In Holland, Denmark, they have Handball where there are professional players earning quite good money.
Basketball & Table tennis are huge in China.
Please, this attitude that Australia has choices & other countries does you no favours.
As per why the A-League doesn’t get the biggest TV deal is a whole thread discussion in it’s self.
Put it this way, I’m a massive football fan who followed RL all my life until 5 years ago.
Dan said | December 30th 2009 @ 12:22pm | Report comment
Punter,
They don’t. Simple as that. Sure, other countries have other sports that are professional; Japan has baseball, parts Europe have Ice Hockey, Handball etc, but no one has the level of football to football competition that Australia has. Not even the United States, which has a plethora of sports, has a like Sydney for instance where there are four fully professional football codes competing in the one market. France has Rugby in the South while soccer is strong in the north, England is all soccer with a small enclave of Rugby League for obscure northerners and middle to upper class that like rugby (making it a non choice apparently for many fans). The UK is the closest you get to “choice” that we have, but it still offers nothing compared to what there is in Australia.
AndyRoo said | December 30th 2009 @ 12:35pm | Report comment
Andy,
Perhaps that’s why people are so keen to have a go at soccer in this country when anything goes wrong (police called in for crowd violence etc)?? Fans of the country’s biggest codes AFL and RL are sick of soccer folk carrying on about how cultured and sophisticated they all are for watching “the world game”. As you say, when you’re constantly putting yourself on a high horse of course people will relish your fall.
No disagreance here and I long suspect that the endless chatter about how the world game will conquer all before it is garbage and a meaningless cop out when discussing domestic football . In fact the way the phrase “the world game” is used quite patronising.
There’s a reason the A-League doesn’t get the biggest TV deals in this country: Australians have choice. 99% of the other countries in the world don’t. They have soccer, and that’s it don’t agree with this but will move on, punters already into it.
Art Sapphire said | December 30th 2009 @ 12:46pm | Report comment
Dan – Yes, football all over the world does have a tendency to attract all sorts of nutters. Be they nationalist, fascist, anti-fascist, anarchists, etc, etc. Due to its mass popularity football crowds pretty much reflects whats going in the the society of the country in which the game is played.
Yes, I do not doubt that BNP footsoldiers frequent football matches in England.
Yes, the English national football team attracts a percentage of supporters that are an embarassment to the country. But, as I said they merely reflect the make up of English society and English attitudes. The same can be said of racism issues at football matches in parts of Europe and European attitudes to race.
In regards to the cheeky quote which I posted (attributed to Polly Toynbee) in regards to RU and fascism, let me clarify something as you seem to be confused.
What Polly Toynbee was implying is that if England was to become a fascist state, the country would be run by the elite rugby school types who think they are the masters of the universe. The BNP football attending lads you refering to will merely be their footsoldiers
P.S Argentina, Serbia and Greece have defeated US National Mens basketball team composed of NBA players in the last decade. That’s pretty impressive considering they come from countries where they don’t have choice. Basketball, might not be big in the UK, but its big in Europe.
Dan said | December 30th 2009 @ 12:59pm | Report comment
Art,
Basketball has a following, but it’s like Rugby League in the UK – professional and reasonably competent, but without a serious national following. Also, the US losing to those teams is no more evidence of it being major in those countries than Australia knocking out Japan in the baseball during the Olympics. One would not take that victory as evidence that Baseball has a following in Australia to rival that of Japan… we clearly do not.
Art Sapphire said | December 30th 2009 @ 1:19pm | Report comment
Oh dear Dan, you have no idea about basketball’s popularity in Europe.
Didn’t you know ts the number 2 team sport in the world in terms of popularity.
Here are the club budgets in Euros for some of the big team in Europe.
Now, where did thet get the money for that??
CSKA Moscow 50,000,000
Real Madrid 39,000,000
FC AXA Barcelona 34,320,000
Panathinaikos Athens 42,120,000
Olympiakos Piraeus 35,880,000
Unicaja Malaga 28,080,000
Dynamo Moscow 20,000,000
Montepaschi Siena 17,160,000
Virtus Bologna 14,000,000
Lietuvos Rytas – Lithuania 11,000,000
Maccabi Tel Aviv 16,000,000
Fenerbahce Istanbul 11,000,000
MV Dave said | December 30th 2009 @ 1:31pm | Report comment
Dan
“There’s a reason the A-League doesn’t get the biggest TV deals in this country: ” Could it have anything to do with it being a 4 1/2 year old comp vs 100 plus year comps of the established codes? The TV deal for football in this country has gone from $2 million a season 4 years ago to $17 million a year now and at least (according to media reports) $60 million a year from as early as next season…does seem to be an upward trend there l’m sure you’ll agree.
“I live in a country where it’s a minority sport that has little money and has to be played in the off season of the other professional football codes to ensure it doesn’t lose its viability” Refer above plus add that the FFA run their season also to fit in with the European leagues.
“In Ireland Rugby is the only sport that unites both north and south ” Wouldn’t have anything to do with Northern Ireland having their own football team?
“Perhaps that’s why people are so keen to have a go at soccer in this country when anything goes wrong (police called in for crowd violence etc)?? ” Crowd violence at games of football In Oz are no worse than AFL (never been to the Rugbies) and crowd behaviour a hell of a lot better than the Cricket at the MCG.
“Australians have choice. 99% of the other countries in the world don’t. ” Load of crap…Oz certainly has a competitive sports market no denying. So do England, France, USA, China, Japan, Brazil, Argentina, Sth Africa, Canada etc and football does very well (in many cases is the no 1).
BTW Art covered the area concerning football fan violence.
Phil E Buster said | December 30th 2009 @ 8:43pm | Report comment
Dan,
1. Segregation of fans does not exist any more than it does in the A-League. You get a better atmosphere and supporter vibe sitting with your own fans, but you will often find, for example in the Merseyside derby, fans of both clubs in the same family sitting together. Yes, away fans have their own section and gate, this is much the same as in the A-League, by and large. See:
http://www.epltalk.com/is-fan-segregation-at-football-matches-a-good-thing/2450
2. Alcohol is permitted at football stadiums, just not in seating areas. At Stamford Bridge Heineken is the beer of choice (the worlds best beer in my opinion, but that’s an argument for another day). Alcohol is not ‘freely available’ only in the sense you have to pay for it.
3. Police presence is not overwhelming, yes there are police around for crowd control (especially after the match when crowds of people spill out onto Fulham Rd and around the train station) but you are more likely to notice stewards in the stadium, who are by and large friendly and helpful.
Mick said | December 29th 2009 @ 10:40pm | Report comment
If I remember correctly (do not know the circumstances behind it) the AFL changed their start time for a Friday night game to avoid a clash with the coverage of the 2002 WC game between Argentina & England which was played in Japan on a Friday night.
The AFL will say they will play while WC is on but I seriously doubt it, they would still get their spectators but some their corporate partners are FIFA / FFA corporate partners ala Qantas, Toyota, & you know where their money would go for that month.
John O’neill knows what it is worth & has said nothing although he probably wants better venues for the next Rugby WC
Michael S said | December 30th 2009 @ 8:34am | Report comment
The switching of the game in 2002 involved the AFL game being moved forward to 6:45pm to ensure it was all over by 9:30 when the soccer World Cup game was due to start. Channel 9 had the rights to both, so it was done for TV reasons – but the AFL only agreed when Channel 9 agreed to underwrite a 45,000 crowd.
Al said | December 30th 2009 @ 12:43pm | Report comment
As an Englishman living in Australia, I believe that Australia does not deserve to host the World Cup any time soon. Association Football is not a big enough sport in this country and it is clear that the majority do not want football played here and even harbour and irrational hatred of the game (perhaps due to the fact that the game was played predominantly by migrants, although association football was played on these shores before Australian Rules was even invented). I have had the whole “Aussie Rules is the greatest sport ever” garbage rammed home by Aussies for years now and I have never understood it, in my opinion it is a tacticless and graceless mess, a diluted form of rugby union without the discipline or ferocity and of gaelic football and association football without the skill, strategy and intelligence. Some of the hits are hard however a standard rugby league or union game is incomparably more brutal, disciplined and enjoyable as a spectacle. Scoring also seems quite trivial considering a point is scored for missing and the goals extend infinitely into space, what exactly is the point if it isn’t difficult to score?
If the majority however would prefer to play it as opposed to hosting the world cup however, then it is pretty clear that Australia does not deserve it and a country where people actually follows the sport should win the 2022 bid.
Dan said | December 30th 2009 @ 12:56pm | Report comment
Al,
You’re entitled to your opinion that AFL is a tactless and graceless mess, but in doing so you must then also accept the charge from AFL fans that soccer is a dull and uneventful excuse for a brawl between fans. AFL has been in this country for 150 years remember and was actually officially uniformly codified BEFORE association football was in England. I’m not an AFL fan, but that is a fact.
As for the irrational hatred, well I would contend that it’s more to do with people seeing soccer as representing intellectual snobbery in the same way Rugby apparently does in the UK (see articles linked by others above). I tend to agree here. I just feel that the spread of the soccer is a manifestation of globalisation that has no place being thought of as “cultured”. It’s a game, and a game that we don’t all have to embrace to be considered part of the world thank you very much. Has anyone ever considered that soccer just might not fit some cultures all that well? I’m sure there’s a reason on in 10 people in Fiji play rugby but not soccer despite FIFA outspending the IRB by a vast margin in the region… It’s the same as there’s a reason that Americans will pack out college football games and NFL games almost every week, yet you struggle to get consistent crowds in the MLS.
Al said | December 30th 2009 @ 1:20pm | Report comment
The vast majority of Association Football fans in this country in my opinion do not want it to overrun and destroy any of the indigenous or more popular codes in this country, they just want their sport to be treated with a modicum of respect after being pilloried for decades by the AFL/NRL and its followers. It has nothing to do with “”globalisation” (although people do unfortunately misuse the “most popular game in the world” argument and the premise of this article does Association Football supporters no favours), it is about finally seeing Association Football throw one back at the established order after being stamped upon for decades.
Association Football fans have long memories, we are aware of the AFL’s celebratory champagne swilling after every Australian world cup failure, of the AFL’s instruction of channel 7 to “destroy” the sport during channel 7’s hosting of the NSL in the late 90s and of the continual and yes, racist treatment of Association Football followers as “un-Australian”, “foreign” and therefore somehow a threat to the makeup of the nation and potential destroyers of the established order. If there are any aspects of “cultural cringe”, it is merely reactionary to decades of derision, mistrust and loathing meted out with almost machine like precision. Association Football supporters just want a fair go and yes, do derive some satisfaction from seeing the heads of the AFL and their sycophants showing concern, after all Association Football supporters in this country have been treated with absolute disdain by them for decades. I have been living in this country for 17 years and I have never seen such hatred for a sport, almost sectarian like in instances, perhaps this world cup bid getting up the AFL/NRL’s noses is more about some vindication than anything else.
MV Dave said | December 30th 2009 @ 1:38pm | Report comment
Been said many times before Al but nicely and succinctly put again…added to the, in many cases, hostile local media (things have slowly begun to change in that respect).
Punter said | December 30th 2009 @ 1:51pm | Report comment
Could this be the reason why the A-League doesn’t get it’s fair share of the TV deal in this country as I touched on earlier.
I have nothing against AFL, but the amount of AFL news in Sydney compared to the interest shown by the normal Sydney punters, it’s huge & uncalled for. Look at the publicity the Test cricket gets & there crowds are A-League like.
I’d have to agree with most of your points AL.
ilikedahoodoogurusingha said | December 30th 2009 @ 2:33pm | Report comment
Don’t take this the wrong way I don’t mind soccer, but possibly the reason the A League doesn’t get its “fair” share of TV revenue is that compared to EPL, Serie A, Bundesliga etc it is a second rate competition. My old man who is a mad soccer fan watches heaps on pay TV from Europe, switches off when the A league comes on. TV viewers can watch much better games from overseas whenever they like. When people watch the AFL or NRL or Super Rugby, they are watching the pinnacles of those sports…so why wouldn’t TV execs pay more for the best competitions.
Art Sapphire said | December 30th 2009 @ 3:12pm | Report comment
ilikedadavefaulker – its the old chcken and the egg story.
Your dad is what is commonly known as a eurosnob.
The only chance we have of him getting to watch the local product is to get enough money into the game for the quality to improve so he can start watching it.
People like mvdave, KB, punter, myself, my friends and many, many others are putting their hard earned into supporting and watching the A-League. The more people that do this the more TV money the clubs get, the better the football standard. This is already happening as the next TV deal will be much bigger than the last. Its a slow process but we might get to a point one day when your dad will finally start watching. Be that in 5, 10 or 20 years time.
What he won’t have, though, is the pride in having helped the domestic soccer league become a high standard competition. Anyway, he is welcome to join the party whenever the standard is high enough for him.
AndyRoo said | December 30th 2009 @ 3:36pm | Report comment
Art
it’s a bit of a conundrum in that I think one of the best advertising campaigns for the HAL would play up the being a part of something real and the match day supporters (and supporter groups). You can go to the games, you can sit 20m from the action and your their main fans. As opposed to supporting the league from afar i.e. the Hong Kong Man Utd fan syndrome.
But such an ad would have to be done right and would largely be played on Fox who own the EPL rights and are a TV company so pointing to the advantages of being able to go to the ground and seeing these guys live isn’t really a great idea.
Punter said | December 30th 2009 @ 3:46pm | Report comment
Art, for a MV fan, you are alright, I totally agree with you. Actually you are a MV fan……
Yes i watch the A-League not because its the best, but because I want to the standard to be as good as it can get.
If everybody in every country was like your dad, ilikedahoodoogurusingha, their would only be 3 competitions in the world the EPL, La Liga & Serie A, because this is where the pinnacles of these sports reside.
Again being no disreespect to AFL, NRL or Superleague, yes we do have the pinnacle of those sports here, but there is little in the way to compare it to, AFL, there is no other professional competition outside the AFL. As for League there is also only the super league to rival the NRL. Same as for the RU.
Jeb said | December 30th 2009 @ 5:25pm | Report comment
@ Art and Punter – I take your point re eurosnobs and the pride current supporters can rightly take in building the league. But I just don’t think its realistic to want others to do the same.
To expand further on the chicken and egg analogy, it’s not just the quality of football that will make people come to the game. It’s having the game as part of the surrounding everyday culture. Watercooler conversations etc. Popularity is of course contagious. People attend events without thinking – because its just what you do in a certain place. Take away the cultural context and the event loses its signifigance.
So just like you need people going to the games to improve the quality (but people won’t go because the quality isn’t there), we need people going to the games for the league to become part of our popular culture (but people won’t go because it isn’t part of our way of life). Very hard to overcome in a crowded market.
Art Sapphire said | December 30th 2009 @ 1:03pm | Report comment
Oh, come on Al, don’t be a party pooper.
It looks as if the Anti-WC lobby has brainwashed you into thinking the majority of us locals don’t want to host the thing.
But then again Bush and Blair used a massive lie to invade Iraq.
They must have been thinking that “If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it”
BigAl said | December 30th 2009 @ 1:07pm | Report comment
. . . whinge whinge whinge !
MV Dave said | December 30th 2009 @ 1:10pm | Report comment
Al
Dont mix up the general population in Australia for the handful local code zealots on this site. Australia does deserve, and in my opinion will win, the hosting rights to the 2018 or 2022 WC. The Oz government is behind it (with all the State Govts), big business will jump on board and once the chest beating from Demetriou et al is done and dusted the general population will embrace it.
As for the A League it will get bigger and stronger over the next decade (no crowds wont match AFL but they dont need to) with the new TV deal worth over $60 million a year, each club having an academy and big money player movements to Europe becoming more common (see rumoured $3.6m fee for Galekovic from AU to Portsmouth – may not come off but shows the potential). Yes football is well on the way to becoming a major player on the Oz sporting landscape…FIFA will want to ecourage this and as a continent the WC has never been here. Exciting times ahead for football IMO in this neck of the woods.
K.B. said | December 30th 2009 @ 5:40pm | Report comment
Al,
we are Australian Football supporters and welcome to the Roar… I have read a few of your posts and like your brash style… But we are young and we are many, across the seas we have come… You know the song..? Well don’t be too despondent about Australian Football as, Art, MVDave, Punter, Jimbo, Mahony, Towser, Midfielder, Milster, RealFootball, Robbos, (where is he wink, wink, Punter) Vicentin, and many, many, more of us I have not mention; we all have one thing in common ie the round ball game, Football is our passion, so join in pick your A-league team, ignore the AFL trolls and discuss football with us… Like to hear more from you…
Cheers
~~~~~~~
KB
Mister Football said | December 30th 2009 @ 5:54pm | Report comment
(Comment deemed poor by Roar community - click to read)
bever fever said | December 30th 2009 @ 6:07pm | Report comment
Apparently living here 17 years, you might think after 17 years he might call himself Australian, yet he has the audacity to complain that aussies dont assimilate in London.
Al said | January 2nd 2010 @ 4:34pm | Report comment
I would but people like you keep on over-exaggerating the fact that yes, I was born in England.
mahony said | January 1st 2010 @ 10:07pm | Report comment
I would like to support MF’s welcoming of KB’s welcoming of AL.
Although I disagree with both their WC bid comments.
I wonder why an Englishman might not want to support Australia’s bid for the WC. It is truly baffling…… not.
Australian Football said | January 2nd 2010 @ 9:59am | Report comment
Mahony,
I am 200% behind the Frank Lowy team to secure the 2018 FIFA world cup for Australia…
Pippi (Mr F) is known to distort the truth… He does not speak for me in his efforts to sabotage the Australian WC Bid…. (If there’s any confusion)
Cheers
~~~~~~~
AF
ren said | December 30th 2009 @ 8:57pm | Report comment
bollocks KB you and others have a strong dislike of Australian Football. The thing you like is association football. stop spreading this rubbish and pretending that autralian football hasn’t existed until soccer decided it liked the name football better than it’s self titled name (Soccer Australia, Socceroos…)
Punter said | December 30th 2009 @ 9:11pm | Report comment
Blah, blah blah, some call it football, others call it football. Some use their feet, others use their hands, some even like to catch it, then their are those who evn head it. But all in all it’s all football. Don’t let it confuse you.
K.B. said | December 31st 2009 @ 8:52am | Report comment
Yep, I now have a strong dislike for AFL…. You have always had a strong dislike (hatred) for Australian Football… Yep, all of that I totally agree with…. Anything else…?
PS I did try to suggest a better name for AFL… A more fitting name to go global with as the name Football is of the round ball kind that the world has come to embraced and you’ll never will take that name away from the world game…. Alas the moderators keep deleting the indigenous name when I attempt to use it for the local code… Take it up with them…
Dan said | December 31st 2009 @ 6:11pm | Report comment
As primarily a Rugby League and Union fan I have to say that while the term “football” is confusing, referring to Soccer in Australia as “Australian Football” is just trying to be misleading… If anything you should call it “English Football”, as that’s where it originated. We don’t refer to the low level American Football comps in Germany as “German Football”, so why call soccer in Australia “Australian Football”? That’s just being silly.
Australian Football said | January 1st 2010 @ 11:33am | Report comment
Dan,
I don’t understand your point… The Italians call their game Italian Football—are suggesting they should call it “English football”… They also play Rugby in italy should they then call it “Engish Rugby” or Italian Rugby..?
You’re confused Dan, I like Rugby and John O’Neill RU CEO has no problem recognising the difference between Football and Rugby and encourages all codes to adopt their originally intended code names ie Football, as it is known across the planet, Rugby, Rugby League, Aussie rules, and you may want to include Gridiron and Gallic…
Football is fast becoming a product name across the world and it never really was meant to be a generic name and now that globalisation has forced the issue—Football is of the round ball type and a growing realisation of that pheonomina…
Dan said | January 1st 2010 @ 9:20pm | Report comment
AF,
You understand my point, you’re just being facetious (that’s being charitable).
No, the italians don’t need to call it “English Football”, but they don’t have a home grown sport they call “Italian Football”. I’m from Sydney, and not much of an AFL fan, but even as a gen Y Sydney-sider I’ve never know heard anyone call soccer “Australian Football”, because that term is synonymous with Australian Rules Football in this country. Try going to the US and asking who won the latest American Foobtall game (hell, just say Football) and I can guarantee you they won’t give you the latest galaxy score.
Ultimately what you fail to understand is that languages, while affected by global trends thanks to the greater interconnectivity that the globalising technologies have affected, are still primarily locally evolving phenomena – they have common roots, but changes on the local level are what make them distinct. Languages are cultural phenomena, and your suggestion that “globalisation has forced the issue” smacks of the imperialist mentality which globalisation is often straddled with. Indeed, it’s the reason there are violent counter cultures that wish to destroy the West. Forcing your “ways” on any culture, where it be tangible, or of a purely linguistic nature is a recipe for breeding animosity and you and your ilk are doing a damn fine job of it in this country.
As for the charge that the word football was “never really meant to be generic”, well if you understood the history of the word you’d know that it was “originally” a blanket term used to describe all team ball games “played on foot”, as opposed to horseback, like the sports of the noblemen.
You want to call it football? Go for your life! But I’ll keep calling it soccer. I’ve always known it as soccer, even when I was living in Japan (the Japanese call it “sakka-” and “futtobo-ru” means American Football), and I’m not going to have some euro-snob who is ignorant of the Australian sporting environment tell me how to use my language.
Australian Football said | January 2nd 2010 @ 9:40am | Report comment
Dan,
I am much older than you and I was also born in Sydney (now retired on the Gold Coast) I played and followed football in the Canterbury district of NSW and yes it was known as association football, but amongst my peers we called it football some referred to it as soccer, those who played RL like you, but you’re being ignorant of the fact (that’s being stupid) just because your circle of friends played Rugby League you never came across anyone who played football calling it football…
Now In the case of the Nth Americans their game was originally created from, or inspired from, the English game of Rugby… So it would make more sense that the Americans used a name like American Rugby, as opposed (that means opposite) to American Football, as the Rugby and Gridiron codes both use their hands to control the ball not using the foot/feet as it is done in Real football…
In Italy you are wrong again about the Italians not ever having an indigenous ball game… There was and it was played in the 17th century, however, now it is all but dead, but for a few traditionalists who get together to keep the code alive.
~~~~~~
AF
Dan said | January 2nd 2010 @ 5:12pm | Report comment
KB,
I’m not being ignorant about soccer fans calling the sport football (indeed I welcomed you all to keep calling it that), I simply asked that you not tell the rest of us what to call the game and also to stop being stupid by pretending that calling the sport “Australian Football” wasn’t going to confuse all but your in-group in this country. I’m not sure if you’re ignoring what I wrote, or simply looking to knock down straw men, but I honestly couldn’t care if you call it football, I just think it’s the height of arrogance for you to tell me that your game has the right to dictate how the rest of us use our language.
As for the Americans, yes they derived their game from the sport of Rugby Football (it’s important to remember that Rugby IS a form of Football) and changed the game significantly enough that the “Rugby” title was no longer relevant. For all intents and purposes the game was still a form of Football (the less specific of the two terms) and thus they named it American Football, and not American Rugby (given that Rugby was the name of a school where the football code’s rules were devised). I won’t respond to the rubbish about “real football” being games where your feet are used more than the hands because I’ve already explained the etymology of the word “football” and how it has no relevance to the level of contact the feet have to the ball. If you wish to continue espousing ignorant arguments for the exclusive use of the word football for only one game though, be my guest. Just don’t be surprised when those of us know look at you with a touch of bemusement.
Lastly, your point about the Italians is utterly irrelevant given that the game is all but dead. If it represented a financial and culturally influential powerhouse like the Australian Rules Football does in Australia or American Football in the States, then yes, it would be a useful analogy, but as a dead game it just sounds like your clutching at straws.
P.S the bracketed comment about you being “facetious” wasn’t an explanation of the word…
Australian Football said | January 3rd 2010 @ 10:59am | Report comment
Dan,
first of all I have changed my moniker from KB (Koala Bear) to now Australian Football (AF) so feel free to address me as Australian Football or simply AF…
You can’t imagine how relieved I’m in that, you are going to allow me to continue to call my preferred code Australian Football (I think that’s what you meant) on a Roar tag that is devoted to Football (not only just for Football, English Football, Italian Football, but Australian Football as well..) you are indeed a very gracious person for allowing me to continue this line of discussion on this an Australian football thread…
I feel exonerated now in that, a huge weight has been forever lifted off my puny old age shoulders, which I have been carrying around for years along with my late friend and football compatriot the late Johnny Warren…
I don’t want to turn this Football discussion into a Football vs. Rugby argument but your statement here is puzzling if not to say contradictory…
“As for the Americans, yes they derived their game from the sport of Rugby Football (it’s important to remember that Rugby IS a form of Football) and changed the game significantly enough that the “Rugby” title was no longer relevant.”
First of all my Rugby friends prefer to call their code Rugby and I hardly ever hear them call it Rugby Football or its Football… I have the confidence in Rugby that the code can stand alone on the name Rugby… I also feel the name Rugby is as important as the name Football as a product name and I wouldn’t argue with them if they felt it was more important…
You see Dan, I don’t think you understand the reality of Football history; if we go back a bit and analyse history and your last para above where you say Gridiron was derived from the English Rugby game, that they eventually felt comfortable with dropping the term Rugby—yes all good so far…
Now most of my Rugby friends and the RUB are heading down the path of rebranding the code as just Rugby as I see it; to be not viewed going into direct competition with FIFA Football World Cups… More and more, we are seeing the name just Rugby being the predominant term used in the media or when spoken about…
For me Football is the game that was designed to be played with the feet and when the Rugby school decided to pick up the ball and control it with the hands it became something else and that is Rugby not Football… Of course you may not agree, but I feel the name Rugby is as important, as the name Football, but it is a different product and a game with a new name—-as all of the other codes are…
I find this obsession from folk like you wanting to call your game (which ever the one it is played predominately with the hands) Football—when all can see that the ball is expertly controlled with the hands… Whatever it is you play, whether it is Aussie Rules, Rugby, Rugby League, Gridiron, or Gallic, be proud in whatever name which defines your preference.
~~~~~~~
AF
Dan said | January 3rd 2010 @ 1:12pm | Report comment
KB,
I’m just going to ignore the trolling about calling the game “Australian Football” (I think we both know you’re just trying to get up the noses of the AFL fans).
Yes, ‘Rugby’ is indeed the preferred name for the sport of Rugby Union Football and I along with most others refer to it as such. You are also right in saying that Rugby is progressively dropping the word Football – no problems here.
However, that doesn’t change the fact that it was you who brought up the topic of ‘football’ “never really being intended to be generic” and you who insinuated that the word was defined by the level of contact the ball has with the feet. I’ve pointed out that historically this is most emphatically NOT the case, and as such American Football, Australian Rules Football, and Rugby League fans (who prefer simply to call their code footy most of the time) are just as entitled to the use of the word as any fan of Association Football if we are to use the word’s roots as a basis.
Rugby is indeed different in that it has slowly decided to use the birthplace of the games rules as a stand alone term for the game, but that doesn’t alter history, and the history of the word football was generic. So irrespective of Rugby not wanting the term, the reality is other sports still do, and who exactly are you to tell them they shouldn’t call their game ‘football’ or footy when you clearly don’t understand the origins of the word? It’s worth remembering that these other football codes were codified long before there was FIFA World Cup. Indeed, Australian Rules Football was actually formally uniformly codified BEFORE Association Football was in England and with that in mind the term “Football” should be just as much theirs as anyone else’s.
I know you say that “for you football is a game played with the feet”, but so what if fans of other football codes are content to interpret the word differently? Why do your “feelings” trump theirs?
I imagine this predomination of folk like you to want limit the use of the word is simply a response to the insistent use of the word “soccer” by many Australians and those in other countries where Association Football is not the culturally dominant code (and of course the odd country where it is, like Japan). You somehow imagine it to be a slight on the game, yet the reality is of course that, much like the name Rugby was merely a schools name, the short hand Cambridge slang for “Association” – “soccer” – has its own meaning now that is understand by all the English speaking world to mean specifically Association Football and no other sport. The word is in fact an officially accepted part of the English language (check your Oxford English Dictionary), and while it doesn’t have much utility in the UK anymore, it certainly does here. Hell, we still call our national team the “Socceroos” for crying out loud.
Australian Football said | January 3rd 2010 @ 7:46pm | Report comment
I’m just going to ignore the trolling about calling the game “Australian Football” (I think we both know you’re just trying to get up the noses of the AFL fans).
Dan,
you are an AFL supporter enough of this tripe that you are a Rugby supporter…
Dan, that is a ridiculous statement of yours above; we play Football, we live in Australia, what do you expect us devoted Football supporters to call it…? Greek Football, Italian Football not English Football you have tried that one…
Now why don’t you call on your AFL administrators to call your game “Australian Rules Football” as a compromise…?
As far as the English speaking countries are concern we have England, Scotland, Wales, Nth Ireland, and now New Zealand and Australia calling Football … Football.
~~~~~~
AF
Australian Football said | January 3rd 2010 @ 8:04pm | Report comment
Btw Dan we call our national team the “Australian National Football Team” when we enter any official FIFA or Asian national sanctioned competition for God’s sake—in time the nick name Socceroo will die with the term soccer in Australia… I for one can’t wait until that day comes…
~~~~~~~
AF
Beast-A-Tron said | January 4th 2010 @ 2:29am | Report comment
AF said – “So it would make more sense that the Americans used a name like American Rugby, as opposed (that means opposite) to American Football, as the Rugby and Gridiron codes both use their hands to control the ball not using the foot/feet as it is done in Real football…”
Wow where to start. Fairly presumptuous to tell an entire country how to name their favourite sport and how to express their language. One thing you don’t seem to understand… is that language is constantly evolving and is FLEXIBLE. That is why we have British English & American English. No one ‘owns’ the word ‘football’, just as no one ‘owns’ the English language.
Rugby & American Football have kicking aspects in their game, I see no problem with these sports calling themselves ‘football’.
I don’t subscribe to this nonsense peddled around (by code warriors of all persuasions) that one code is the real football. The term ‘football’ is in the eye of the beholder.
What I don’t understand is, you appear to think that football codes involving the disposal/possession by hand are somehow disqualified from the name ‘football’. Never mind throw ins, goal keepers, Hand of God & T.Henry goals. The removal of carrying the ball came after the formation of the FA, not before (October 1863). Clearly the semi-prohibition of hand use is not sacrosanct, nor intrinsic to soccer.
In your eyes, when soccer decided to drop use of hands (to an extent) suddenly Rugby is no longer football.
http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Laws:of:Football.html
Here is a couple of nuggets I’ve dug up in researching the origins of soccer (which will also prove how ignorant you are of the history of your own sport):
“8. If a player makes a fair catch, he shall be entitled to a free kick, provided he claims it by making a mark with his heel at once; and in order to take such a kick he may go back as far as he pleases, and no player on the opposite side shall advance beyond his mark until he has kicked.”
“13. A player shall be allowed to throw the ball or pass it to another if he made a fair catch or catches the ball on the first bounce.”
“4. A goal shall be won when the ball passes between the goal-posts or over the space between the goal-posts (at whatever height)…[no crossbar].”
One additional commentary I’ll add about throw ins. I don’t know when this rule was introduced, but it wasn’t apart of the original thirteen laws. So somewhere along the line in the history of soccer, an additional rule allowing hand disposal has been added.
You claim association football is the ‘football’ because of the semi-exclusive use of feet, well it seems Association Football’s founders had different designs from yourself.
Dan said | January 4th 2010 @ 5:28am | Report comment
KB/AF,
Calling me an AFL fan doesn’t deflect from the fact that you haven’t managed to address my points. Again, I haven’t told you that I want you to call the association football “soccer”, I’ve simply illustrated that the latter term remains one of significant utility in much of the English speaking world and you’re therefore in no position to tell us no to use it (particularly considering North America makes up much more of the “English speaking World” than the UK and New Zealand – and in NZ nobody has any issues with calling the game soccer anyway).
If you honestly can’t understand why calling Association Football in Australia “Australian Football” would be confusing, then I’d suggest you’re living in some kind of fantasy land…
Dan said | January 4th 2010 @ 7:09am | Report comment
“Btw Dan we call our national team the “Australian National Football Team” when we enter any official FIFA or Asian national sanctioned competition for God’s sake—in time the nick name Socceroo will die with the term soccer in Australia… I for one can’t wait until that day comes…”
I wouldn’t count on it happening in the near future. Official names aside, a lot of people who like soccer (and believe it or not I know a fair few) actually rather like the name “socceroos” because they consider it part of the team’s heritage. I think that maybe its just old soccer nuts like you that hate the term because you’re from an era where you felt it stigmatised the sport (though the name never had anything to do with it I’d say), whereas people of my generation don’t really care that much… we watch what we like. I call it soccer, some of my friends call it football (though I’ve never any of them call it “Australian Football”) and we all get along fine not telling each other how to use our language.
Australian Football said | January 4th 2010 @ 9:34am | Report comment
Dan,
I’m not going to call my football code Soccer—–this discussion is what it truly is all about… Don’t try to deny that this discussion is not about that… You started the discussion with me about my use of the term “Australian Football” as not being politically correct in the sporting landscape of Australia… I disagree, because the world has moved on and Australia is finally now catching up with the rest of the world in a global media sense… If you are slow to recognise that fact well I can’t help you…
We have now hundreds of internet sites using the name Football and the Sydney Morning Herald have weighed in with the Football tag on their sporting pages… So I suggest you take a good hard look next time you buy a copy of the SMH—go to the sport section and tell me what you read…
I haven’t told you to call my code Football you are try to tell me to stop calling my code “Australian football” and revert to calling it Soccer, simply because you can’t stand the thought of Soccer in this county changing its corporate name from old “Soccer Australia” to the new name “Football Federation Australia” FFA… Well get use to it Dan, it is here; a growing tsunami that, will wash the Australian sporting landscape clean of the name soccer eventually, within 20yrs, because of our continued success in FIFA Football World Cups…
~~~~~~
AF
Australian Football said | January 4th 2010 @ 9:46am | Report comment
Beast-A-Tron,
you give me no credit; I have known about the limited use of the hands in Harrow Football for more then 2 years when I stated researching the origins of football and found that the great ancestor of the modern game of the 21st century “English FA” was born from the London school of Cambridge rules…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4I3-w9589E
I have found this video link above showing how the game was played in the late 16th century keeping the old London Harrow school football traditions alive… You will find this contemporary video fascinating with its use of a round football as big and as a medicine ball, and no doubt as heavy when wet… So in short if the game that is played with the feet, dribbling the ball with the feet and looks like football, it sure is likely to be called football… Rugby is the code expertly controlling the ball with the hands and now the term Rugby is as important as the name Football.
~~~~~~
AF
Dan said | January 4th 2010 @ 7:54pm | Report comment
KB,
¬At no point was I ever expecting or insisting that you to call Association Football “soccer”. This is simply something you have imagined possibly due to the fact that you are (by your own admission) a very old and long suffering Association Football fan in this country, a fact that has probably contributed to you assuming I must be an Australian Rules Football fan for defending the heterogeneous use of the term “football”. I never once said that any one code had a particular right to the term “football”, all I did was 1. explain that you were ignorant of the historical meaning of the word (but only after you left yourself open to it by hopping on your high horse), 2. illustrate that the word soccer, though irrationally regarded as offensive by some English people and yourself, is indeed an English word that actually is the dominant name for the game of Association Football in the English speaking world (and when it comes to “the rest of the world” in a debate about the use of a portion of the English language, surely the fact that the majority of the English speaking world actually use the name soccer for Association football would be of some significance to you), and 3. that you could not reasonably expect people in Australia to not be confused by calling soccer “Australian Football” any more than you would expect an American to assume you meant soccer when referring to “American Football”. I get it, you don’t like the AFL or its fans.
I imagine it is related to the fact that you are (by your own admission) a very old and long suffering soccer fan in this country (so charmingly illustrated by the “tsunami” argument that only soccer fans of the baby boom generation are so famous for – young association football fans don’t carry on with that rubbish).
Australian Football said | January 7th 2010 @ 8:27am | Report comment
Dan,
come on, you want everyone in Australia and the English speaking world to call football Soccer, that is your true motivation here with this discussion with me… Don’t you comprehend what you write…? Just be honest you don’t like football, because you are frightened of its growing popularity in Australia, so because of that, you have taken me to task for using the term Australian Football… I might be all you say being sensitive about the term Soccer because as I see it, the name does not convey an action of actually kicking the ball with the feet–––it’s an abbreviation of the word association, a noun also used with an organisation called ‘the Brest Feeding Association’ that my new young neighbour/mother next door recently became a member of.. Maybe when I see her next I should ask her how was her day at the soccer…? And two because it is used as the slave name by people such as you who hate football and are just as sensitive about me wanting to refer to my Football in Australia as Australian Football…
As far as the Football history is concern you are the one that is ignorant forgetting that AFL does not have an exclusive right to the name Australian Football in Australia, if it’s only by logic… Do they own the term football..? Is it the only code played in Australia..? No of course not… Football (name) was an English invention not an Australian indigenous invention or am I mistaken about that too…? Can you prove to me that Tom Wills was the first to invent the name Football and it was the English round ball enthusiasts that stole the name from him…? No of course they didn’t…
The problem is Dan, you see the term Football as generic I don’t anymore, I see it as a product name belonging to the men who first coined the name and are the ones who morally own the right to the use of the name football exclusively (of course in reality that won’t happen)… But it is sheer arrogance that people like you who play other codes insist we use the term soccer and not football on sport forums or in any media you choose to name…
If the term Australian Football is confusing to you then adopt the “Aussie Rules Football” tag or tailor your name to suit your meaning, I will continue on my path thank you…
You could not be more ignorant to suggest that old Football folk like me are the ones stopping the young Australians from the use of the term Soccer; hah, you can’t possibly be serious because you would be a fool to think so… You are totally wrong if you do––if you are suggesting the Footballing youth today are comfortable with the term Soccer they are definitely not…
You are of course an AFL advocate (sorry that’s what you are don’t pretend you are a Rugby person) who is totally ignorant that the young Footballing generation of Australia are not the ones rebelling to the continued use of the term Soccer by the Murdoch media empire protecting their AFL and NRL interests by refusing the moral and rightful name football for Real football on their forums…
Lastly and most importantly Dan, I did not personally have anything to do with the name change from Soccer to Football in Australia it was John O’Neill Rugby CEO who had over seen the corporate name change for the FFA (Football Federation Australia) and for good reason to stop people like you denigrating the code by suppressing it in the media with phrases like Football (AFL) vs. Soccer… I totally agree with his strategy if old AFL agitators like you don’t…
Did you buy today’s SMH by any chance? Now there’s a progressive media outlet proudly displaying Football in their sport pages…
Thank you for your concern about my mental health but you are the one stalking me here on this thread tell me to revert to Soccer not me stalking you to call my code football so stop the pretence and it may be you that has the problem not me… btw my moniker is Australian Football (AF) it is no longer KB, please in future use my new moniker when addressing me––– if you have a problem with that then don’t reply…
~~~~~~~
AF
Beast-A-Tron said | January 7th 2010 @ 7:30pm | Report comment
“come on, you want everyone in Australia and the English speaking world to call football Soccer, that is your true motivation here with this discussion with me…”
I’m inclined to say you want everyone to call soccer exclusively football, and pretty much every other code can f%#@ off. Of course you won’t openly admit that, so I’m only speculating, but I can tell by the way you argue [inaccurately] so vigorously about history and etymologies that in your mind there is only one real ‘football’ and it gets you pretty angry that other sports have the audacity to call themselves ‘football’.
That whole garbage about football being a product and not a generic term, shows a fundamental ignorance in regards to the evolution of the English language.
Not to mention Dan has repeatedly indicated he has no problem with soccer fans referring to association football as ‘football’.
I mean really, do you look at what you type? Refusing the “moral and rightful name football for Real Football”, seriously do you not see how fanatical that is? Moral?! Let me quote that once again: “moral”?! You sound exactly like a preacher, you really do. Sort of like the whole Protestant vs. Catholic thing and who was ‘Real Christian’.
PS. Your analogy about the ‘Breast Feeding Association’ is just…bizarre.
PPS. “Moral”…lol
Dan said | January 7th 2010 @ 11:15pm | Report comment
Ugh, it’s like you’re debating yourself here at times. Ok, I want you to really pay attention to what I’m writing for once because I’m beginning to think you’re talking to someone else…
I most emphatically DO NOT want people to start calling association football soccer just because I do. I’m not, like you, ignorant enough to think my personal preference for a small fraction of the English language could be uniformly enforced on the rest of the English speaking world. I do not go to England, for example, and go around telling everyone “it’s call soccer mate”, the way Englishmen will routinely do in Australia with the reverse demand. Language is too localized and complex for such ignorant assumptions.
My point is simply this: Like it or not soccer is a legitimate part of the English language and it is not short for the word “association”, it is short for “association rules football” the way “rugger” was once short for “Rugby rules football” (this is going back a bit). The simple fact that you find it offensive because you’re an aging soccer fan with a persecution complex does not change the reality that it is a commonly used word (heck, there’s even a major international magazine called “soccer world”). It is not a “slave” term (honestly “slave”?), nor is it a derogatory term. It is a term that gained popularity in Great Britain before either Rugby Football or Association Football (remember that Rugby had not decided to “drop” the football tag 150 years ago) had become predominant. Thus the term rose to utility in other places where there were MORE THAN ONE TYPE OF POPULAR FOOTBALL. I want you to remember that – AND THIS IS IMPORTANT SO READ IT – “Football” is a word that ORIGINALLY referred to all team games “PLAYED ON FOOT” as opposed to “ON HORSEBACK”. Therefore, claims that Association Football was first and that they have a sole right to it are ILLEGITIMATE. They simply have “A” right to it, much like American Football has “A” right to it. Clear?
You have charged me with claiming that I think AFL has the sole right to use the word football. You’re either being stupid or just plain dishonest so you have a point to argue. Again, the AFL most certainly has NO RIGHT to claim exclusive use of the word. But then neither does Association Football. It’s that I claim the latter that seems to upset you so much and maybe in your rage you form your own realities about what I’m actually saying.
Next important point:
You state that you don’t see the word football as “generic” anymore. So bloody what if you don’t? I don’t see god’s existence to be anymore probable than the existence of a KFC on Mars, but I don’t go around trying to burn down churches. The fact is the word football existed LONG before Association Football ever came into existence. You’re belief that it’s not specific and belongs to association football, is just that – a belief, and one with no grounding in history or reality.
I don’t see the word football as specific in the Australian context and neither do a lot of people. It can be specific at an A-League match, but it is equally specific at an NRL, NFL or AFL match. The point is context; which makes it subjective here. By stating that you don’t see the word as subjective, YOU are insisting that everyone else stop using the word soccer. It’s you who is the linguistic nazi here, not me.
Nevertheless, you’ve banged on and on about me “insisting” that you call your game soccer instead of football, so here’s a challenge for you: go and find one sentence where I say that ANY association football fan ought to call it soccer. I’ll give you a hint: THERE ARE NONE. What you’ve irritating failed to understand is that I’m not speaking for soccer fans, they call the game football and I’m fine with that, I’m simply explaining that I know the game as soccer and know Rugby League as Footy. I prefer Rugby League and Rugby Union to soccer, and I relate with a lot of league fans who know League as “Footy”. Why is it that I should have to alter my use of English because you are so utterly emotional and irrational as to feel “soccer” is a “slave name”?
As for the argument about “Australian Football”… well I honestly can’t help you here. Calling it Football makes sense if you’re an association football fan, but calling it “Australian Football” outside of very specific contexts (eg: “the quality of the Australian Football competition hasn’t produced many premier league stars”) makes it sound like you’re speaking about an originally Australian sport. Call it that if you like, but don’t be surprised if you confuse more than a couple of people not intimate with your odd little fascist linguistic tendencies.
Moving on.
I also never said old people like you are stopping young Australians from using the term soccer (where on earth did you get that idea?!? How old are you exactly?). I am a member of “today’s youth” and I’ve always known the sport as soccer. Again, explain to me why your feelings on this issue are supposed to dictate how the rest of us use our language?
Lastly, if you’re wondering why I’ve been debating you so insistently, its because of statements like this: “… the moral and rightful name football for Real football on their forums…”
It’s precisely your assumption that soccer has a “moral” superiority that entitles it to be known by all as “football” that I’m debating.
Again, if we’re speaking of the English speaking world here, then why do you consistently ignore the North Americans who make up the majority? Why is their linguistic preference less relevant than those of the UK? You’re just as ridiculous as the AFL nuts who re-titled their section “Real Footy” after the SMH changed the soccer section to “Football” (notice that it doesn’t read “Australian Football” however). You both assume some sort of ownership of the word. You keep assuming I’m an AFL fan, but the truth is there’s no need for me to pretend to be anything because my point still stands regardless of what my preference is. It’s merely a reflection of your own glaring insecurities that you need to imagine me as an AFL fan to feel ok about this (I debate with expat poms and they hate me more for being a rugby fan – remember it’s a class thing over there – but they don’t dwell on it).
Language does not “morally” belong to you or any sport. It’s you who’s the zealot, not me.
Once you can explain to me why anyone who knows the game as soccer and has grown up with different sports being known as “football” or “footy” should suddenly drop the word, and consequentially come up with new names for their other sports to accommodate your game (which they’ve less interest in), then I’ll stop debating. But all you’ve come up with so far is that it’s a “slave” name… which is garbage.
Australian Football said | January 9th 2010 @ 8:00am | Report comment
“AFL has been in this country for 150 years remember and was actually officially uniformly codified BEFORE association football was in England. I’m not an AFL fan, but that is a fact.”
Dan,
that is wrong AFL was formed in 1997 as a national body which the South Australian Aussie Rules body are still yet to join as a fully fledged member so technically they can change their rules to suit the South Australian Aussie Rules game in their state and so left the door open for themselves just for that reason… That’s after repeated requests by Andrew Demetriou AFL CEO to fall into line with the AFL brand … and its constitution… SA Aussie rules still remain a separate corporate identity…
The English FA was properly codified in 1862 as the national body for the country as you can see the English FA is much older and technically more codified then the AFL that is a fact… btw the English Sheffield football club was formed in 1857 two years before the Melbourne Aussie Rules club which would be the English Sheffield football club or Melbourne Aussie Rules club equivalent..
“I’m just going to ignore the trolling about calling the game “Australian Football” (I think we both know you’re just trying to get up the noses of the AFL fans).”
Wrong again Dan––I have always considered Football in Australian as being “Australian Football” not English Football etc… Along with long time commentators of the Australian game Les Murray, the late Johnny Warren, Craig Foster, all of the SBS TWG crew, the Fox Football team Simon Hill, Robbie Slatter, Andy Harper and the FOX FC team… Many More I have not mentioned who write for the Fairfax organisation and those who professionally write here on the ROAR Forum, Jessie, Mike and Tony, so I am not alone in this “Australian Football” analogy, all of whom, I have mentioned have written so in their columns or have commented as such during their TV programming…
Now pay attention Dan, as you even fail to grasp what you write because you are so consumed with anti-football hatred (Like the Beast an appropriate name for him when he is not tuned into the Simpsons)… Now again Dan, I accuse you of being an Anti-Football zealot trying to keep real Football from identifying itself as Australian Football or Football just because you have grown up in an AFL or Rugby demographic––not that I believe you are a Rugby man because what is so strange about you is that, John O’Neil the Australian RU CEO is quite clear and happy with the new branding of Australian Football (FFA) in Australia, but for some obscure reason you are not happy with this… So I conclude and suspect you are an AFL zealot, who is intent to force your will upon me… Not me trying to force my will upon you as you keep suggesting…
As proof to that fact, here we are having this nonsensical conversation on a ROAR Football blog about me wanting to use the name Football not Soccer, as my proof in your opening address to me with “Ugh”… No my moniker is not “Ugh” I have repeatedly told you my new moniker part of my new years resolution in honour of our lads who are on their way to the 2010 Football World Cup in South Africa… So I honour our boys with my new moniker Australian Football or AF for short if you so desire…
“As primarily a Rugby League and Union fan I have to say that while the term “football” is confusing, referring to Soccer in Australia as “Australian Football” is just trying to be misleading… If anything you should call it “English Football”, as that’s where it originated. We don’t refer to the low level American Football comps in Germany as “German Football”, so why call soccer in Australia “Australian Football”? That’s just being silly.”
Sorry Dan I should have addressed this parra of yours first… That’s just a polite way of saying I should revert to calling my code Soccer… No denying it Dan––or twisting your words around, it still means the same thing, you are calling upon me to not be silly and support your anti-football zealous belief and have called upon me again to call it Soccer not Australian football or Football… One goes with the other as I am an Australian permanently living in Australia, Queensland so Dan that is ridiculous in your words you are happy for me to call my code Football but draw the line with Australian Football… Don’t you realise that is a contradiction in terms of football ideology…
“Football” is a word that ORIGINALLY referred to all team games “PLAYED ON FOOT” as opposed to “ON HORSEBACK”. Therefore, claims that Association Football was first and that they have a sole right to it are ILLEGITIMATE. They simply have “A” right to it, much like American Football has “A” right to it. Clear?
Dan, I have heard of that posturing and rationale before when you may have been in nappies, it was commonly used all of the time with these stupid debates like this one and I always laugh at its incredible stupid logic for even suggesting that all team games played under foot are football, how terribly insecure that statement is and still no mention of the hands in your argument with the ball moving along the line from the half back to the wing… lol
Please Dan you’re wasting your time and mine with that old fashion brain-washing statement that even the IRUB have let go of… Get up to speed Dan… For instance basketball is a team game played under foot with the hands and two baskets representing goals and the game was an American invention played on a rectangle court inspired from the real football code… But everyone had the good sense not to call it indoor Football, Soccer or Futsal… It has a product name, which they are proud of… wait for it … it’s called Basketball.
Also Dan, I was like you once believing that Rugger sorry Rugby, was the older game of Football being invented before the English London Schools of Football Harrow, Eton Cambridge etc but since I’ve started my research I found that the London dribbling the ball codes with the feet date as far back as the 16th century and recently they found a Harrow school football in an attic of an old Scottish Castle, yes a 16th century a Harrow Football that, the University of Edinburgh had confirm being carbon dated of that period… So suddenly, after being brainwashed to believe what you believe has suddenly all changed for me…
(Don’t worry Dan as you say Football will be continued to be misunderstood to belong to all of the running on foot codes as you say) … For now.
However, for me a lot has changed and I am now of the belief that my football is the true owner of the name Football that was hijacked by the other codes without the proper consent or permission… AFL and eventually all will be forced to concede as the FIFA Football World Cups eventually becomes the only football currency of the World and that will eventually include Gridiron as the Americans grow to love the game Soccer with now 50m registered soccer players who will in the end demand the name change its corporate name from Soccer to eventually Football when they have an EPL equivalent and a dominant National Football Team that will out play Brazil at FIFA world cups..
You know the Americans Dan, once they get a sniff of success in the world’s most popular Football code they will want to dominate it even own it and call it their own invention… Dan, it’s inevitable it will happen they get impressive numbers now for their MLS club games. and still growing with a lot of traction withe its fantastic run in the SA Confederation’s cup that was totally unexpected. Just look what the Football world cup has done in New Zealand with their qualification.
~~~~~~
AF
Springs said | January 9th 2010 @ 1:08pm | Report comment
Geez man c’mon. The first football sport was a mass team sport between two entire towns where one team has to carry the ball (in whatever way possible) and touch the other town’s church, or something like that. If you say our sports hijacked the name football then your sport hijacked it from this football, ehich is more like rugby. The 17th century soccer ball you found certainly would not have been used to play the sport you now call football, but rather a very primitive version of football that all others were derived from.
To think that your sport deserves ownership of the term ‘football’ and especially the term ‘Australian football’ is very selfish. The same as Union fans who think League should not be called Rugby. And I do not think Australian Rules Football should also be called ‘Australian football’ and no other sport should. All four football codes are football, all are played in Australia, all are Australian Football.
And I think Melbourne should play Sydney in a game of original football, with teams of 3 million each.
mahony said | January 1st 2010 @ 10:02pm | Report comment
Kub-by-ya my Lord….. …..
Lindommer said | December 31st 2009 @ 10:29am | Report comment
Al, a small lesson in history: association football was NOT played on these shores before Australian Rules was invented. The English Football Association was formed in 1863, a small time before the English Rugby Football Union in 1871. There was “football” of sorts played in Australia before those dates but it wasn’t under any formal code, as football of all sorts was at the time in England. Australia was as involved in the formal codification of the various footballs’ laws/rules as England, and by 1866 a set of rules was drawn up to enable to some Victorian teams to take part in a formal competition. This is quite significant as it was only a moment before, in 1862 to be precise, the first formal competition in football was founded in England. As you’d well know there were various sets of rules for “football” in England at the time, “Sheffield” rules, “Rugby” rules, “Nottingham” rules, Eton wqall game, etc.
You might also like to know the clubs around the Golden Square in central Victoria can count among their members some of the oldest football clubs in the world. And they play Australian football!
Mister Football said | December 31st 2009 @ 6:35pm | Report comment
(Comment deemed poor by Roar community - click to read)
Mister Football said | December 31st 2009 @ 7:19pm | Report comment
(Comment deemed poor by Roar community - click to read)
MV Dave said | January 1st 2010 @ 9:43pm | Report comment
” ABS statistics show quite clearly, that for all Australians born overseas, both form English speaking and non-English speaking backgrounds, AFL games attract more of them than any other sport – in fact daylight is a clear second.”
Do you have a web link for such a claim?
Ando said | December 30th 2009 @ 3:19pm | Report comment
Hahaha – all the bogans are angry “OOOGER BOOOOGER I WON’T GET TO WATCH MY TERRIBLE SPORT FOR A WHILE OOOOGER BOOOGER SOCCER BAD MEAT GOOD”
BigAl said | December 30th 2009 @ 3:24pm | Report comment
So ! . . . Ando . . . is that it ? – and what’s the point you’re trying to make ?
jimbo said | December 30th 2009 @ 3:50pm | Report comment
That Soccer is Bad and Meat is good.
bever fever said | December 30th 2009 @ 4:02pm | Report comment
This is what soccer fans do when losing an argument, they attempt to portray those that choose another code in favour of soccer as neanderthal types.
Sort of like the “world game” speak that is really patronising and snobbish.
jimbo said | December 30th 2009 @ 4:09pm | Report comment
I’m not a “soccer fan”, I’m a football follower and I’m not arguing with Ando – I agree with what he says – meat is better than soccer,
I’ve never said that the AFL Capital of The World is Neanderthal – its far too late for that now.
bever fever said | December 30th 2009 @ 4:15pm | Report comment
I’ll tell what you can’t do, and that is answer a simple question with a honest answer … if Melbourne is not the sporting capital of Australia then what city is it Jimbo ??.
AndyRoo said | December 30th 2009 @ 6:48pm | Report comment
Bever, Melbourne is just the spectator capital….all the talent comes from NSW (with due respect to WA and QLD for decent contributions)
Wallabies, Kangaroos, Socceroos and the Cricket team. NSW dwarfs the Vics for talent production.
Even in AFLwe dont produce many but apparently Carey and Hird went allright and I am sure a NSW team could win the AFL International cup.
MV Dave said | December 30th 2009 @ 4:11pm | Report comment
“Sort of like the “world game” speak that is really patronising and snobbish” Ohh you mean like the official AFL commercial spruking the “Game that made Australia”?? Heard that one went down well north of the Murray.
Instead of World Game we’ll just refer to it as Football.
K.B. said | December 30th 2009 @ 5:24pm | Report comment
Bever, as Jimbo has alluded to you … yes we are football fans … and are you trollling on the football thread AGAIN…?? hmmm …. I know how you hate others doing that on an AFL thread… damn it I can’t say that other name anymore or I will be cut off again…
BigAl said | December 31st 2009 @ 12:04pm | Report comment
Thanks for the clarification Ando.
Mister Football said | December 30th 2009 @ 3:33pm | Report comment
(Comment deemed poor by Roar community - click to read)
Mister Football said | December 30th 2009 @ 4:57pm | Report comment
(Comment deemed poor by Roar community - click to read)
football said | December 30th 2009 @ 5:20pm | Report comment
You guys continue to go around in circles argueing the same points.
Australia is bidding for the WC, the govt is backing the bid, Australia wants the WC. The logistics will be worked out if & when we get the bid.
Live with it.
Mister Football said | December 30th 2009 @ 5:48pm | Report comment
(Comment deemed poor by Roar community - click to read)
K.B. said | December 30th 2009 @ 5:57pm | Report comment
Mate the 2018 WC is eight years out… We will give you an answer when we win the bid until then suck on a VB and stop the winging…. We may even build a sceond 50k rectangle stadium for the Hearts FC to play in….
Mister Football said | December 30th 2009 @ 6:20pm | Report comment
(Comment deemed poor by Roar community - click to read)
K.B. said | December 30th 2009 @ 7:31pm | Report comment
What are you on about “generosity of other codes” what grounds do other codes own…? All the grounds are built on government land AFL don’t own anything yet… Nor do the NRL… Please don’t go on about the AFL building the MCG and Edihad… That’s nonsense
Mister Football said | December 30th 2009 @ 7:38pm | Report comment
(Comment deemed poor by Roar community - click to read)
Beast-A-Tron said | December 30th 2009 @ 8:09pm | Report comment
Interesting that you describe business & finance as “nonsense”.
K.B. said | December 30th 2009 @ 8:22pm | Report comment
No renter ends up owning the property by just paying the rent on the property.. fact of life… It still remains with the vendor until he decides to sell that’s the truth….
Beast-A-Tron said | December 31st 2009 @ 11:11am | Report comment
Commercial reality still hasn’t dawned upon you has it?
Punter said | December 30th 2009 @ 9:13pm | Report comment
I like AFL but I like to live in football threads. Why? Because I’m a ……
ilikedahoodoogurusingha said | December 30th 2009 @ 6:05pm | Report comment
Unfortunately my Dad cannot wait 20 years til A league may be as good as the European leagues….he is 70 years old. He grew up in the UK a die hard Newcastle United Fan, went to the 1966 world cup final. My point is not to run down the A league but to point out the financial reality, and that is Europe has the money, that is where the best players and leagues will be because of it. Anyone who believes the A league can compete with that is deluded.
MV Dave said | December 30th 2009 @ 9:14pm | Report comment
No one has said the A League will compete financially with the big Euro leagues…but the A League is ours and we can go to the games, boo the refs and the opposition, cheer our team, talk with mates at the game how we were robbed, see, feel and hear the atmosphere etc. It may not be the best standard in the world but those of us attending the games are helping to build a decent Australian league which will compete in Asian Cups, World Championships etc. As a MV member for 5 seasons l feel a great sense of belonging and ownership of the club something l feel less and less of the great ManU who l have supported since a boy (place of birth) but have only occassionally watched live in the last 40 years. The fact is the A League is here to stay and reality is that as the clubs build history, win championships, lose controversally, lose players to other clubs, play in finals, develop rivalries/derbys etc the people who enjoy football as a sport will begin to come to the games in greater numbers. With the new TV deal finances will improve and as clubs develop players through academies the standard will improve. If your Dad is in Melbourne he will love the atmosphere of a Victory game with their new stadium up and running next season and, just quietly, they play the best quality football in the entire league as well
ilikedahoodoogurusingha said | December 31st 2009 @ 10:36am | Report comment
I agree with the atmospehre thing etc…thats why my wife and I travel to Canberra on a regular basis to watch the Brumbies. Unfortunately Dad lives in the outer suburbs of Sydney, and this is possibly part of the A leagues problem with attendances……some people (not all obviously), watch top quality football and tv and are reluctant to fork out for transport and tickets to watch a game of not as good quality as they can see on TV. He does make an exception for Rugby, when he goes in with his mates to watch the Waratahs, and he does go to the Socceroos internationals where possible, but not Sydney FC. When he was growing up in Newcastle he could walk to St James’ Park and there was virtually nothing else but English and Scottish football on tv back then. Having just come back from a holiday in Melbourne (for the first time) I can see how easy it is to get from the city to the sports grounds….you are truly lucky to be in that situation.
clearlyafoul said | December 30th 2009 @ 6:13pm | Report comment
Interesting reading the comments – seems to me this issue has touched a nerve about national identity. Some believe there is a real possibility that we will lose something if we embrace football and aspire to the highest level. I can’t see that. Society is maleable and will change regardless, our information rich age will ensure that that change happens faster than ever before. We are a strange people in many ways, one of the very few countries in the world with such a low population to even have a credible WC bid yet some of us are full of angst about percieved costs and the threats….believe me it is not sport that dominates the horizon as a major issue to the sustainability of our culture and standard of living in coming decades.
I have been to world class sporting events around Australia and the globe but nothing gets my blood up like a crucial Socceroos match. I hope Frank et al can do the job. Lets host a truly global event that sends the right message about this great country.
Punter said | December 30th 2009 @ 6:56pm | Report comment
‘I have been to world class sporting events around Australia and the globe but nothing gets my blood up like a crucial Socceroos match.’
I cannot endorse this comment more. This is exactly how I feel. I love sport, but this rings so true & loud for me.
cab711 said | December 30th 2009 @ 7:59pm | Report comment
I find us Aussies dont party hard enough. Im hoping we win the bid so when the Euros & Sth Americans come they can show us how to REALLY party!
Mister Football said | December 30th 2009 @ 6:17pm | Report comment
(Comment deemed poor by Roar community - click to read)
Michael S said | December 30th 2009 @ 6:22pm | Report comment
India have never bid to host a FIFA World Cup. Does that mean that India are not truly global citizens?
Czech Republic have never bid to host a FIFA World Cup. Does that mean Czech Republic are not truly global citizens?
Norway have never bid to host a FIFA World Cup. Does that mean Norway are not truly global citizens?
Peru have never bid to host a FIFA World Cup. Does that mean Peru are not truly global citizens?
I could go on 150 times, but you get the idea……
football said | December 30th 2009 @ 6:27pm | Report comment
If your dad grew up in England & followed Newcastle United he can hardly complain about the A league as he was following a third rate competition the First division for decades. It amuses me how the English die hards talk about quality & neglect to mention the quality of the first division before the foriegners came into the competition.
The European clubs make an annual trip to Asia to increase revenue because they realise that that is where the revenue growth is, & massive merchandiseing opportunities.
Mister Football said | December 30th 2009 @ 6:46pm | Report comment
(Comment deemed poor by Roar community - click to read)
AndyRoo said | December 30th 2009 @ 6:53pm | Report comment
Man Utd came straight after they won the Treble.
Mister Football said | December 30th 2009 @ 6:55pm | Report comment
So how many games is that from top four leagues over the past decade?
AndyRoo said | December 30th 2009 @ 7:01pm | Report comment
This year was Fulham, Wolves and Celtic…not a bad haul considering the best preperation would be closer at home. Plenty for mine.
Mister Football said | December 30th 2009 @ 7:12pm | Report comment
(Comment deemed poor by Roar community - click to read)
AndyRoo said | December 30th 2009 @ 7:21pm | Report comment
Between them those 3 clubs turn over around A$ 320m a year so I don’t see what you are getting at…seems a strange point.
SideShowBob said | December 30th 2009 @ 7:47pm | Report comment
$ 320 M a year turnover for just 4 clubs, you say? 8-12 years to the WC?
Then it couldn’t be any clearer.
Let us unite to lobby FIFA to add a 50p / 60 euro cent tariff to the cost of each ticket for each top four league game up until the cup and perhaps after (to cover expected blowout costs in building the necessary stadia) to help spread the joy of the “world game” to us heathens in Australia.
Time – tick.
Money – tick.
Motivation – ?
Much better to see some funds go to developing the sport than to the spiraling number of elite overpaid, self-entitled prima donnas (the players).
Now that truly would be a demonstration of real leadership and leaving a legacy in the most appropriate way (the sport supporting its own programs, not the local taxpayer)!
K.B. said | December 30th 2009 @ 7:39pm | Report comment
Mr F… Please explain your point—-I’m at a loss
ilikedahoodoogurusingha said | December 31st 2009 @ 10:24am | Report comment
He doesn’t complain about the A league…he just doesn’t watch it because he can watch better quality elsewhere. I agree the First Division was a much poorer quality before all the overseas players started coming into the competition….but, and this is my main point, no matter where you live in the world, thanks to pay tv you can watch the premier exponents of any sport you want just about……pre pay tv you had to watch whatever you could see live or what the free to air channels gave you. My original post was in answer to why the A league doesn’t get its fair share of tv revenue…and that may be part of the reason, there is better quality elsewhere, so that’s where the money goes…..I believe that is why basketball is struggling in Australia…..basketball fans can watch the top exponents play on TV so don’t bother to turn up for live games in the same numbers.
football said | December 30th 2009 @ 7:04pm | Report comment
Mister Football
Australia is part of Asia, our discussion was about revenue, the A league will get to share into that revenue(ACL,Asian Cup etc). They dont need to come to Australia.
Your point was about financial reality wasn’t it.
Mister Football said | December 30th 2009 @ 7:09pm | Report comment
(Comment deemed poor by Roar community - click to read)
K.B. said | December 30th 2009 @ 8:00pm | Report comment
“Why do they not come here”… Are you serious…? Few dozen reasons why they do … and a few thousands reasons why they don’t… Basically it’s to do with the calendar season and how they finish the season with some players on international duty some play up to 60 matches a season and need a rest; some clubs ask for too much money to go on tour…
Gawd you say you are English… You have a poor understanding of Football scheduling … there are thousands of reasons some come and some can’t…
I saw my first English touring team (Everton FC) play a NSW XI at the Sydney Cricket Ground way back in the early sixties… Everton won 0–11 in front of a sell-out crowd… Since then there have been hundreds of touring club teams and national teams all smacking our backsides… However, a lot has changed since those days… Now we command respect on the international stage when once we were only sheilas, wogs, and poofters; now we are Australian Footballers going to our 3rd world Cup…
Mister Football said | December 30th 2009 @ 7:45pm | Report comment
(Comment deemed poor by Roar community - click to read)
AndyRoo said | December 30th 2009 @ 7:49pm | Report comment
So you believe that AFL will become an oddity seen only at folk festivals in the near future?
if you think one statement he makes is foolish then why would you put credence in the other?
Mister Football said | December 30th 2009 @ 7:57pm | Report comment
(Comment deemed poor by Roar community - click to read)
K.B. said | December 30th 2009 @ 8:12pm | Report comment
The simple answer to that is Big Events build infrastructure… Roads, Transport, Stadia etc with out the Big Events they don’t get built nor leave a legacy to build on… No trade net working … The CEO of the Australian Trade Commission spoke about the importance of such events that have long term benefits from networking during these WC tournaments its about international business as well as the Football …
MV Dave said | December 30th 2009 @ 8:41pm | Report comment
MF
And yet this….
“SOWETO, South Africa (MarketWatch) — Mahlodi Legodi is not a soccer fan, but she’s excited about the World Cup coming to her country.
“It’s a great opportunity that we are having the World Cup hosted in South Africa,” the 18-year-old resident of the country’s most famous township said in an interview outside her home. “Keeping in mind the struggle that we have been through, and keeping in mind that we’ve had some people that died for freedom, I’m very proud that the World Cup will be held in South Africa.”
and
“Legodi’s attitude epitomizes that of most South Africans, whatever their political persuasion, race, social class or economic status. The country, still deeply divided along fault lines left behind by decades of racist apartheid rule, has united behind the worldwide soccer tournament — which, along with the Olympics, is the only truly global sporting spectacle worthy of the name.
“There is nothing that unites South Africans more than sport,” according to Russell Loubser, chief executive of the Johannesburg Stock Exchange”
You can read the rest at: . http://www.marketwatch.com/story/south-africans-united-and-proud-for-world-cup-2009-10-14
There have been significant upgrades to infrastructure that may well have not occured in the foreseeable future without the WC.
Another article from the Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2009/nov/05/south-africa-world-cup-2010-preparations
An interesting point about make up of the crowds from the above article;
“Inside the stadiums, sporting crowds in South Africa still tend to divide among racial lines. While football crowds remain overwhelmingly black, rugby crowds are overwhelmingly white. And Khoza believes that must change if the league is to continue to attract lucrative sponsors, bring in better players and develop academies that can start to address the criticisms being levelled at the South African Football Association for not doing enough to develop young talent.
“The white population become armchair supporters. They don’t come to the stadium. But during the Confederations Cup we had a big transformation. During the British Lions tour, 95% of the spectators were white,” he said. “In the Confed Cup, we had 50% white and 50% black. It was a big transformation. We hope to improve on that going forward. It is not enough for them to be watching at home, they must be at the stadium.”
Many more if you do a search.
There are many positives but you choose to go with a negative…mmm…motive?
Mister Football said | December 30th 2009 @ 8:59pm | Report comment
(Comment deemed poor by Roar community - click to read)
MV Dave said | December 30th 2009 @ 9:17pm | Report comment
And your an expert on this matter …or just hopeful the SA WC will be a failure?
Its funny how when you put up an article its important, meaningful, relevant etc but articles that indicate the opposite are …populist drivel!
Michael S said | December 30th 2009 @ 9:54pm | Report comment
South Africa’s situation is very different to Australia’s. South Africa has not hosted significant international events previously, and endured a generation of being boycotted and has found it a challenging process emerging from the apartheid era. For South Africa, the World Cup is being used to unite the country.
But that’s not the case here. The World Cup bid is not a source of unity but a source of division. Supporters of the traditional winter codes, AFL and rugby league, are being marginalised and routinely insulted as “insular bogans” by soccer fans. Traditional sports are threatened, not just by being locked out of stadiums for 2 months, but by the financial effect of this lockout which will severely weaken all clubs and threaten the solvency of some.
A South African version of The Roar, at the time the bid was being prepared, would have been near unanimous in their support for the bid. But in Australia, that’s not the case. We who post on sporting forums such as this one are the sporting hardcore, and yet we are divided. Bitterly divided. And if such division exists even among sports fans, support is unlikely to come from those who don’t care which bunch of sportspeople kick balls on our ovals but who baulk at the costs and impositions that hosting such an event would bring. The more the implications of hosting this World Cup become known, the less palatable it becomes.
jimbo said | December 30th 2009 @ 10:10pm | Report comment
What about the Cricket World Cups and Rugby World Cups in South Africa Michael?
But you are absolutely correct – the FIFA WC will lead to so much division that it will lead to a civil war and many people will be killed – we must avoid a Football World Cup anywhere in the world at all costs!
MV Dave said | December 30th 2009 @ 10:25pm | Report comment
MS
1. “South Africa has not hosted significant international events previously” Rugby WC in 1995, African Nations Cup mid 90s
2. ” For South Africa, the World Cup is being used to unite the country” No doubt some truth in that
3. “The World Cup bid is not a source of unity but a source of division” All the State Govts and the Feds are right behind it. Just because you and a few other local code zealots on this site dont want it doesnt mean the country is divided. The majority of the Australian population are right behind it and can see the chest beating of Demetriou et al for exactly what it is.
4. “Supporters of the traditional winter codes, AFL and rugby league, are being marginalised and routinely insulted as “insular bogans” by soccer fans. ” You must neglect to read the posts where the reverse happens…perhaps you only read what you want to believe?
5. “Traditional sports are threatened, not just by being locked out of stadiums for 2 months, but by the financial effect of this lockout which will severely weaken all clubs and threaten the solvency of some.” Bollocks…it wasnt so long ago the AFL itself was trying to get rid of clubs or have them merge…who is to say this wont be the case again in 10 years. The AFL and Rugby will still have plenty of stadiums to play in and no doubt discussions on some form of compensation for this once in a lifetime disruption will take place.
6.”We who post on sporting forums such as this one are the sporting hardcore, and yet we are divided. Bitterly divided. And if such division exists even among sports fans, support is unlikely to come from those who don’t care which bunch of sportspeople kick balls on our ovals but who baulk at the costs and impositions that hosting such an event would bring” Refer to 2 above…by the time the WC is ready to be held the whole country will be behind it.
7. “The more the implications of hosting this World Cup become known, the less palatable it becomes.” Refer to all the responses above.
If the AFL et al are smart they can benefit enormously from the exposure Oz will receive during 2022 (my pick for when we will get the WC).
Jeb said | December 31st 2009 @ 5:54pm | Report comment
You raise an important point Michael S – those that are commenting are of course the sporting hardcore and not anything like the opinion of the silent majority.
Of course the roar crowd is divided. A lot of comments come from those whose life would crumble if they lost a couple of months of AFL in 14 years time. But you can’t extrapolate this division to the general population who know (after germany if there was any doubt) that the socceroos take this nation to places we’ve never been before. Polls show that at the moment the majority supports the wc bid. anything further is speculation.
Mister Football said | December 31st 2009 @ 6:40pm | Report comment
(Comment deemed poor by Roar community - click to read)
Jeb said | December 31st 2009 @ 9:25pm | Report comment
to do what? assure you that the world won’t end should afl stop play for a few weeks in the winter of 2022?
Mister Football said | December 31st 2009 @ 11:59pm | Report comment
(Comment deemed poor by Roar community - click to read)
matty1974 said | December 30th 2009 @ 8:07pm | Report comment
Hello Mr Football/Pippinu! so Pip made it back onto the roar site, only a few days after retiring, must be one of the quickest comebacks in sporting history. Don’t tell me that the forumers on au.fourfourtwo.com got tired of hearing the same mindless drivel, wild speculation and lies you have been spouting here for last few months?
K.B. said | December 30th 2009 @ 8:16pm | Report comment
Matty,
its the same style… The Football Saboteur returns in disguise
yes you are RIGHT …
Mister Football said | December 30th 2009 @ 8:20pm | Report comment
(Comment deemed poor by Roar community - click to read)
jimbo said | December 30th 2009 @ 10:05pm | Report comment
You might as well be Pip – you all come from the same mould.
Mister Football said | December 30th 2009 @ 10:15pm | Report comment
(Comment deemed poor by Roar community - click to read)
MV Dave said | December 30th 2009 @ 10:41pm | Report comment
But AD has already said the AFL will be supportive of the bid…hope they’re not being dishonest and telling porkies?
Mister Football said | December 30th 2009 @ 10:49pm | Report comment
(Comment deemed poor by Roar community - click to read)
MV Dave said | December 30th 2009 @ 10:47pm | Report comment
“you’ll find a sub-forum with over 6,000 posts, and about fifty of us with pretty much the identical view on this,” So 50 of you typed out 6,000 posts…fair effort…
Winston Churchill anyone…never have so few, worked so hard to stop an international sporting event coming to these shores which would benefit so many and ultimately disrupt so few.
Mister Football said | December 30th 2009 @ 10:50pm | Report comment
(Comment deemed poor by Roar community - click to read)
MV Dave said | December 30th 2009 @ 10:58pm | Report comment
“No – we had help from about 50 soccer fans arguing the opposite view (and hurling their usual abuse at AFL fans).” and of course the AFL fans were impeccable in the blog manners without the hint of any abuse towards the Sokkah folk.
:
Mister Football said | December 30th 2009 @ 11:01pm | Report comment
(Comment deemed poor by Roar community - click to read)
MV Dave said | December 30th 2009 @ 11:05pm | Report comment
Apart from you calling them “racist rednecked bogans”?
Mister Football said | December 31st 2009 @ 12:01am | Report comment
(Comment deemed poor by Roar community - click to read)
Beast-A-Tron said | December 31st 2009 @ 11:34am | Report comment
How dare you pervert the message of Churchill…!
Chuq said | December 30th 2009 @ 11:30pm | Report comment
“sick and tired of the remarks coming from soccer fans” – do you not see the irony in this after 50 years of “sheilas, wogs and poofters” commentary flying the other direction?
By the way (to others): ‘Mister Football’ is ‘Barkly St End’ on Bigfooty, it’s unlikely he is Pippinu, though I haven’t been bothered to research posting history or anything like that.
Mister Football said | December 30th 2009 @ 9:39pm | Report comment
(Comment deemed poor by Roar community - click to read)
Realfootball said | December 30th 2009 @ 10:11pm | Report comment
Football, Mr Football? I’m glad I had the forethought to corner “real” first.
Folks, this is the bottom line: The Federal Govt wants the World Cup here for reasons that are as much geopolitical as economic. What the government wants, it will get – domestically at least. Whether FIFA agrees or not is a different matter. Personally, I don’t think the WC will come here, but if I am wrong – and I hope I am, then it won’t matter one tiny jot what contracts the AFL or the NRL have with what stadiums.
There is only one significant sport in world geopolitics and that is football. RU and Rl are just footnotes and ALF is simply a local cultural peculiarity. That’s reality.
Mister Football said | December 30th 2009 @ 10:17pm | Report comment
(Comment deemed poor by Roar community - click to read)
Realfootball said | December 30th 2009 @ 10:26pm | Report comment
As I said, Mr F, if the government wants the WC, it will get it.
I understand AFL perfectly well. Once again – it’s a geopolitical reality. In the global context, to say AFL is very small beer would be a significant understatement. In terms of players and followers it is minute, a cultural oddity with little reach north of the Victorian border.
The WC debate has to be seen in a wider perspective. An AFL contract with Etihad is not going to stop it. You are deluding yourself if you think it will.
But as I said, I can’t see the WC coming here. Geopolitics again – FIFA has much bigger fish to fry.
Mister Football said | December 30th 2009 @ 10:32pm | Report comment
(Comment deemed poor by Roar community - click to read)
Realfootball said | December 31st 2009 @ 11:08am | Report comment
Thanks MF. I try to be thorough.
MV Dave said | December 30th 2009 @ 10:30pm | Report comment
“That local cultural peculiarity can derail the bid – only a non-AFL person would think otherwise.” Gee l’m sure AD will be thrilled to be remembered as the person who derailed the Oz bid (BTW Pip AD has already stated he is supportive of the bid and once the chest thumping and posturing is done he will sit down and work with the FFA to enable the 2022 to be held in Oz).
bever fever said | December 30th 2009 @ 11:05pm | Report comment
Your reality is that you resort to using the name “real football” on a forum that many different football followers of all codes use, if you were on a soccer forum i could understand it, but on this forum it is simply a another attempt by a soccer zealot to take some sort of pathe tic high ground.
Just as using the term “world game” and the more specifically the title of this article “World Cup bid makes us truly global citizens”.
Realfootball said | December 31st 2009 @ 11:07am | Report comment
Well, beaver, the less said about your moniker and the intellectual level it denotes, the better.
bever fever said | December 31st 2009 @ 3:39pm | Report comment
I think we have been through that before, its after a greyhound that i won quite a bit of money on, and i quite like the name.
Your moniker is really quite a patronising statement to many fans of different football codes, and this is not a one code site but a multi sport site.
AndyRoo said | December 31st 2009 @ 3:43pm | Report comment
I dont remember ever seeing Realfootball post on anything other than football (soccer) threads so not many people will be offended.
Perhaps the odd sporting award thread or a Rugby League thread somewhere.
Australian Football said | December 31st 2009 @ 4:02pm | Report comment
Bever,
please note my new moniker is “Australian Football” hope to hear your comments about it—–the lads here have given it the thumbs up … Happy New Year again All… TTFN the dogs at the CRSL club are waiting; and I’m feelin’ lucky
cheers…
~~~~~~~
AF
Beast-A-Tron said | December 31st 2009 @ 11:28am | Report comment
“Football, Mr Football? I’m glad I had the forethought to corner “real” first.”
That’s a fair amount of insecurity there. I’m just speculating, but I’d say you’re afflicted with the classic soccer inferiority complex.
jimbo said | December 30th 2009 @ 10:27pm | Report comment
“local cultural peculiarity can derail the bid”
Stop deluding yourselves gentlemen from the AFL Capital of the Universe.
Australia can host a FIFA World Cup with or without a couple of Melbourne AFL parks.
Some people once thought the AFL fussing was going to do Australia’s chances a lot of harm – especially Andrew Demetriou,
But it appears FIFA are now more determined than ever to spread football in this part of the world and looking forward to football growing further in this region.
Mister Football said | December 30th 2009 @ 10:55pm | Report comment
(Comment deemed poor by Roar community - click to read)
jimbo said | December 30th 2009 @ 11:48pm | Report comment
For the sort of money the AFL and NRL are looking for as compensation “for disrupting their season”, the FFA and the Federal Government are now seriously looking at the option of building a few new demountable rectangular stadia for the WC and beyond outside of Victoria.
Sydney’s Olympic Stadium is available for hire, is perfect for football and complies with all FIFA regulations for hosting the opening ceremony, opening match, one of the semis and the WC final.
Mister Football said | December 30th 2009 @ 11:55pm | Report comment
(Comment deemed poor by Roar community - click to read)
Kurt said | December 31st 2009 @ 12:03am | Report comment
Jimbo – do you have any more information about this – i.e. – what exactly is a ‘demountable stadium’? I’m serious by the way, this is the first I’ve heard of it. I assume it’s a temporary stadium – i.e. – one that you can put up and pull down in a minimum amount of time. Would this really meet the needs of a WC?
Mister Football said | December 31st 2009 @ 12:09am | Report comment
(Comment deemed poor by Roar community - click to read)
jimbo said | December 31st 2009 @ 12:10am | Report comment
Kurt read this:
http://www.london2012.com/news/2007/11/new-era-of-stadium-design-unveiled.php
The Stadium for the London Olympics Opening Ceremony is an 80K seat stadium which is demountable and reduces to 25K after the Olympics.
Ideal for a rectangular WC stadium that can be used for football and rugby afterwards.
They cost about 250-300Million.
Kurt said | December 31st 2009 @ 12:23am | Report comment
OK, interesting, thanks. If I was a soccer fan I’d be pushing for this option rather than upgrading AFL stadia. I guess you’ll still need to find all the locations outside of the AFL states, but that shouldn’t be a major problem, not sure how FIFA views multiple venues in the same city.
Looks like a win-win.
jimbo said | December 31st 2009 @ 12:39am | Report comment
Yes, with proper planning and government support (which is now in writing) the FIFA WC could be held in Australia without interrupting the AFL or NRL season.
The protests by the AFL have actually been a compliment to the FFA and have also been a blessing in disguise for the other codes.
The football and rugby communities get the benefits of new 25-30K stadia and the jobs and economic benefits that go with building these stadia.
Melbourne would actually lose out by not taking part in the WC.
etat said | December 31st 2009 @ 9:12am | Report comment
very straightforward with new football stadia constructed in Perth, Adelaide and Melbourne. The demountable element would mean that a world cup in Australia would go ahead with high capacity venues and after the event football, league and union would benefit from brand new, smaller permanent stadia. Ideal.
Mister Football said | December 31st 2009 @ 9:39am | Report comment
(Comment deemed poor by Roar community - click to read)
etat said | December 31st 2009 @ 10:13am | Report comment
The states of Australia aren’t bidding for the world cup. The major bid backer is the Australian Government and the amounts of funding we are talking about isn’t as significant for a federal government as it might be for a state government. Remember, the Australian Government controls the purse strings for an event like this and I think that if they want to completely side step AFL compo claims they would just build new stadiums. The technology and money is available all it would take is political will.
jimbo said | December 31st 2009 @ 11:25am | Report comment
No, no more stadiums for Melbourne.
The point is FFA don’t need Melbourne or the AFL to stage a WC in Australia.
The demountabls would be ideal for the West Sydney A-League venture (Campbelltown?) or one from Wollongong, Canberra, Tasmania or Newcastle. They will become the A-League team’s home ground after the WC and shared with the local NRL team during the winter.
The demountable idea was used on Sydney’s Olympic Stadium reducing it from 110K capacity to 85K. Its going to be used for the London Olympics so no reason why it won’t work here in 8-10 years time.
http://www.sportsvenue-technology.com/contractors/staging/nussli/
K.B. said | December 31st 2009 @ 8:37am | Report comment
Attention Mike Tuckerman,
Better late then never Mike … congratulations for writing a first class opinion piece that we Football folk are truly global citizens and I feel that as much as you do because of my love for football culture and its many diverse different football styles, skills and tactics that I have come to love and enjoy… With FIFA and its 208 member nations, states and regions, how can anyone doubt that…
The Australia national Football Team is now poised to join the upper echelon of the true super football nations of the world with back to back World Cup appearances… Not all will appreciate our Australian Football style, but many are now respecting our presence in the only true global sporting event with more nations taking part then the Olympics… Starting out on the road for the Holy Grail from the last 2006 world cup in Germany….
More than 15k travelling Aussies supporters were in Germany to support the Australian National Football Team and its amazing run to the second group stage just missing out on the quarter finals from a last ditch penalty to Italy who eventually become the champions of the world. I hope we can continue this amazing football odyssey that no other code can match.
~~~~~~
KB
AndyRoo said | December 31st 2009 @ 9:17am | Report comment
The demountable stadium is probably the name for what they are proposing to do in Campbelltown.
It will be approx 45k for the world cup then they take away the seating at the ends and it comes down too 25k which is about right for the post world cup demand.
As to this thread, it’s a lot of huff and puff from AFL fans for what boils down to the use of Docklands Stadium in 2022.
That’s the only issue in resolved between the AFL and the FFA yet the knives are out from the AFL fans.
@ Chuq, ‘Barkly St End’ has a blog and his first post was pretty much an aggregate of Pips ranting when he left the Roar.
I would be amazed if their different people, or if they are different people I fear for Pips life in a “single white female stalker ” kind of way.
Mister Football said | December 31st 2009 @ 9:41am | Report comment
(Comment deemed poor by Roar community - click to read)
etat said | December 31st 2009 @ 10:24am | Report comment
Sydney’s two stadia will be the Olympic stadium close to the geographic centre of the city in Homebush and the Sydney Football Stadium close to the City. Both will require a bit of a refit but their existence means that there wont be a stadium at Campbelltown used for the world cup.
AndyRoo said | December 31st 2009 @ 10:27am | Report comment
Contrary to a lot of good reports etat.
Campbelltown is considered it’s own city separate from Sydney and it seems the NSW government are willing to fund it.
etat said | December 31st 2009 @ 1:09pm | Report comment
Fair enough re Campbelltown not being part of Sydney. The situation with the Sydney urban aggregation being split into lots of little LGAs is part of the reason I think the NSW gets away with so much and Sydney has such awful infrastructure. Fine for Sydney and the NSW government to claim that Campbelltown isn’t part of Sydney but then maybe those mighty capitals of Canada Bay and Mosman could have their own stadiums too.
Seriously, I don’t think that a Campbelltown stadium will be part of any Australian hosted world cup for three reasons:
1) there are limits to the number of stadia in any one city and I think most people at FIFA will see Campbelltown as part of Sydney
2) it’s a long way from where I think a Western Sydney A-League franchise will end up playing so might be of dubious benefit to the FFA / A League. I think the western sydney team will play closer to the geographic centre of Sydney somewhere around parramatta.
3) Campbelltown mightn’t be a part of Sydney that the FFA, FIFA and the Australian Government really want to put on a pedestal during the World Cup show.
AndyRoo said | December 31st 2009 @ 1:29pm | Report comment
I think we get caught up too much with the rule about 2 teams in a city, it’s more a guideline and it hasn’t stopped Qatar from bidding.
The Campbelltown Stadium is obviously viable because of Rugby League and Rovers are not committed to it (I think they preferred it was built in Blacktown).
When your scrapping for numbers and your not paying for anything to be built then you take what’s on offer and the NSW Government is offering.
It doesn’t do much for Football long term but it’s a rectangle so it’s better than using Docklands in my opinion.
And contrary to popular belief some parts of Campbelltown are very nice (their is a good half and the then the half people like I live in).
I would even say it’s nicer than a South African Township
Springs said | December 31st 2009 @ 11:18am | Report comment
Well that’s completely useless. Campbelltown is already being upgraded to more than 20,000. If the Tigers don’t get a permanent 40,000 seat home then why should they give it up for the duration of the World Cup
jimbo said | December 31st 2009 @ 12:15pm | Report comment
If the NRL coperated with FFA, the Tigers would get a brand new stadium that they could share in the winter time with the West Sydney A-League club starting in 2012.
etat said | December 31st 2009 @ 1:18pm | Report comment
Jimbo I think this is the type of “deal” that the NRL should be aiming for. Rebuilt stadia in cities like Perth, Adelaide, Melbourne, Newcastle, Wollongong, Townsville and Gold Coast constructed for world cup peak capacity and modified for reduced “normal” capacity after the big event would see all footballs come out a winner. AFL ovals wouldn’t be touched, league and union would have new facilities, and association football would share in the great new stadia for their summer season.
In Australia we have the desire, the money and the public support for this type of action so all it would take is political will from the federal government to make it happen. However, I don’t think Campbelltown will get the nod.
Springs said | December 31st 2009 @ 1:30pm | Report comment
How is a modified ‘normal’ capacity stadium going to help the NRL? We have to contend with the factthat a lot of our major stadiums are being rebuilt during the season and then don’t get to use them afterwards?
Newcastle is already looking at a 40K stadium, it will be 33,000 by the end of the current redevelopments. Perth will be upgraded if the WA Reds are let in, we won’t have a team in Adelaide, we just built a 31,000 capacity stadium in Melbourne, Wollongong is being upgraded now and Townsville and Gold Coast are already over 25,000. We don’t need to spend billions on new upgraded 40,000 seat stadiums just so we get 25,000 seat stadiums afterwards that we already have. Plus the time it will take to downgrade the stadiums again.
AndyRoo said | December 31st 2009 @ 2:36pm | Report comment
we just built a 31,000 capacity stadium in Melbourne
So no help from MV their?
You don’t think that by 2022 the Knights will want an extra 5k?
It’s a huge advantage to get the extensions fully paid for before you need them rather than reach capacity and then have to lobby for more $$$. If the reason the extension is built for Newcastle is because of the Football World Cup rather than at teh request of the RL that means the Knights are in a good position to have the lease terms frozen based on the old capacity.
Imagine if after 2022 their are 6-8 rectangular venues that can hold 40k, the NRL will hopefully have membership numbers of arround 15k maybe approaching 20k. Maybe more (if AFL can do it so can RL). It’s 13 years to adapt the AFL membership culture to NSW and QLD and then really set the comp up to take them on.
The German world cup was huge for the Bundisliga, they got Government funded upgrades they didn’t have to pay for and they were able to slash ticket prices and now get huge crowds.
After locking int he stadiums it’s then up to the codes tog et together and start lobying for bettter transport links and bigger car parks.
Springs said | December 31st 2009 @ 3:18pm | Report comment
As in ‘we’ I was more talking about Australia. ‘We’ don’t need to spend billions…
Knights will most likely have a 40,000 seater by 2022, and no they won’t want another 5k. I was responding to the post above who said that the stadiums will be downgraded afterwards to 20-25K, what’s the point in that?
If we need 6-8 venues with 40K+ then we can do it without the soccer World Cup. The only one I can see being useful is the proposed Campbelltown Stadium so the Tigers can stop playing at the SFS. Parramatta is upgrading, Wollongong, Newcastle. bulldogs, Souths, Roosters have 40K+ stadiums, Manly, Penrith, Sharks don’t need bigger stadiums (although they do need upgrading). Gold Coast, Townsville, Canberra have 25K+ grounds which can easily be upgraded if needed.
Realfootball said | December 31st 2009 @ 11:13am | Report comment
New stadia would be a good political option for the Fed Govt – lots of jobs and money into local urban economies. Methinks the demountables will carry the day if they are viable.
Art Sapphire said | December 31st 2009 @ 11:18am | Report comment
Mister Football – Out of curiousity I just popped over to the bigfooty website you keep spruiking.
Well, wouldn’t you know it. Its the current residence of our good friend Pip (aka Barkly St End) where he has made a remarkable 894, mainly anti- World Cup posts in the last 3 weeks since debunking from The Roar. Phenomenal.
Mister Football can you please send our regards to Pip from the usual suspects at The Roar and wish him well on his heroic crusade
Punter said | December 31st 2009 @ 11:22am | Report comment
Amazing & all the time masquerating as a football fan (MV, Socceroos & Italy)
jimbo said | December 31st 2009 @ 11:30am | Report comment
No he’s on the AFL payroll as well – they hire bloggers like him to disrupt the other codes.
Wouldn’t put anything past the AFL and Demetriou.
Beast-A-Tron said | December 31st 2009 @ 11:40am | Report comment
(Comment deemed poor by Roar community - click to read)
Beast-A-Tron said | December 31st 2009 @ 11:45am | Report comment
(Comment deemed poor by Roar community - click to read)
jimbo said | December 31st 2009 @ 11:49am | Report comment
Then prove to us they aren’t.
Beast-A-Tron said | December 31st 2009 @ 11:50am | Report comment
(Comment deemed poor by Roar community - click to read)
jimbo said | December 31st 2009 @ 11:56am | Report comment
The way Demetriou and the AFL operate you guys are guilty until proven innocent up here.
Beast-A-Tron said | December 31st 2009 @ 12:00pm | Report comment
Well that is not how our justice system operates, I bet you take issue with that too. No worries, if you want to spit on logic then so be it.
But don’t make outlandish claims and then expect, demand others to disprove it for you. Quit being so lazy.
jimbo said | December 31st 2009 @ 11:54am | Report comment
Funnily enough I was at a Carols by Candlelight night last week at the local park in Sydney’s North and right in the thick of it was an AFL tent trying to sign up youngsters to play Auskick.
Apparently the AFL “helped with the costs for the night”.
The deal was $5 for next year’s registration and of course the free cap, Sherrin and Tshirt, but as well you got a free $20 NAB bank account thrown in.
Despite all that there were hardly any takers, but a few groups of kids throwing a league ball around and kicking a football using the side of the AFL tent as the goals.
Mister Football said | December 31st 2009 @ 11:44am | Report comment
(Comment deemed poor by Roar community - click to read)
Australian Football said | December 31st 2009 @ 12:12pm | Report comment
Yes it’s me KB with my new years resolution and moniker to boot going into 2010… For my a new year’s resolution; no more disparaging remarks about Mel Vic FC, now that the phoney football supporters have gone, with only the real genuine football folk left standing, soon to move into their brand new rectangle football stadium…
Good luck lads for the coming ACL Championships and the FIFA World Club Cup Championships… However, don’t get too cocky as you will soon have to face the might of SFC, and GCU, but hopefully your players will obtain a few memorable autographs from my boys after the fixtures are played and hopefully from the mighty Chelsea lads providing you get to room at the same hotel… Good luck lads in the ACL championships… I hope it goes well and do Australian Club Football proud…
~~~~~~
AF
Art Sapphire said | December 31st 2009 @ 12:31pm | Report comment
AF – If MV can borrow Colosimo,Culina, Brosque and Smeltz for the ACL we’d pretty much win the thing.
Keep the disparaging MV remarks coming. No need to change. We’ve got pretty thick skins down here in Melbourne as you are no doubt aware.
A SFC v GCU prelim final would suit us in Melbourne just fine.
Happy New Year to everyone
MVDave said | December 31st 2009 @ 12:34pm | Report comment
Hey KB err sorry Australian Football
Thanks for the link when l clicked on it went straight to report on ManUtds great win 5-0 over Wigan this morning
2 points behind and closing!! thanks and good luck with your new moniker>
Happy New Year and here’s to another MV/MU double
Keep up the good work.
Realfootball said | December 31st 2009 @ 12:14pm | Report comment
Boy, I remember the way the fire hit the fan when on another thread I recounted my experience at my son’s primary school assembly of the kids being offered $10 to play AFL. Pippinu, among others, accused me of lying. Now, from jimbo, it’s raised its head again, and the amount of has been doubled to $20. Yes, AFL people, that is what the NAB $20 bank account is – a cash inducement to children to play AFL.
I suppose all is fair in love and war, but offering kids $20 to play your sport does seem to be both ethically dubious and rather pathetic. Not to mention expensive – but I guess with their TV deal, the AFL can afford it.
jimbo said | December 31st 2009 @ 12:18pm | Report comment
They’re not getting many takers up here so not so expensive for the AFL.
We on the North Shore always charge double . . .
Australian Football said | December 31st 2009 @ 12:22pm | Report comment
Yes Realfootball, I remember—I wonder if Pippi is reading this thread right now…. ???
~~~~~~~~
AF
jimbo said | December 31st 2009 @ 12:23pm | Report comment
The AFL have set aside $200Million to “expand AFL in NSW and Queensland.”
Expect more to come when the second Sydney and Gold Coast teams get started, with a set up budget of $200Million each.
Realfootball said | December 31st 2009 @ 12:29pm | Report comment
Huge money. Imagine if the FFA was able to spend even a quarter of that in QLD?
Success buys more success.
jimbo said | December 31st 2009 @ 12:33pm | Report comment
Not necessarily.
Despite the AFL’s efforts and big spending in 2009, AFL popularity actually fell in NSW, especially TV ratings and Swan’s attendances.
In fact, overall AFL attendances across the country fell for the first time in eight years.
Their recent efforts are also creating mpre enemies than friends up here.
jimbo said | December 31st 2009 @ 12:29pm | Report comment
Me too.
The family on the mothers side came to Australia in 1850.
The first thing that comes across from NRL and AFL followers is that Australians don’t follow football.
That’s elitist, racist and ignorant thinking.
bever fever said | December 31st 2009 @ 6:18pm | Report comment
(Comment deemed poor by Roar community - click to read)
Mister Football said | December 31st 2009 @ 1:03pm | Report comment
(Comment deemed poor by Roar community - click to read)
Redb said | December 31st 2009 @ 3:22pm | Report comment
(Comment deemed poor by Roar community - click to read)
jimbo said | January 1st 2010 @ 9:29pm | Report comment
Redb,
didn’t your ancestors come from Europe – Britain is part of Europe.
And the people who started AFL were European migrants.
Nothing in this country isn’t foreign to its rightful people.
Redb said | January 1st 2010 @ 10:02pm | Report comment
(Comment deemed poor by Roar community - click to read)
Al said | January 2nd 2010 @ 4:57pm | Report comment
No, Aussie association football nuts have only wanted a fair go from the tyrants that have treated us and our sport with utter contempt. We don’t care about your sport and how many millions play it here, good for you, go play it with your victorian buddies till the cows come home. We just finally feel vindicated that association football in this country has a governing body that will not grovel and be screwed up the posterior by the dictators of the AFL, those that less than 15 years a go attempted to kill off our sport in this country with their channel seven buddies and whom for years have stuck the boot into football via their mouthpieces in the media and by their own deeds. Finally the power brokers of association football in Australia are giving back what they have taken for many decades and it feels gratifying to know that the AFL nutters are getting pissed off. It’s about time they got a bit of their own back (with hopefully much more to come).
Timmuh said | December 31st 2009 @ 4:49pm | Report comment
The headline for this article is clearly a monstrosity, and not necessariyl the fault of the author. Putting in a bid to host an event does not make anyone a global citizen. It doesn’t make the nation globally important. It means a bid gets put in to host an event. Yes, its the biggest event on the planet by a long, long way (possibly too big for Australia to cope with), but making us “global citizens”, I really think not. Places such as the WTO, UN, etc, are where global influence is built and can be wielded, not by hosting a sporting event. South Korea has hosted Olympics and half a World Cup, are they any more important or “global” than they would have been without them? No, but they are probably financially worse off.
“as someone whose love of the round ball game has resulted in numerous trips abroad, I can’t help but feel that such complaints are a tad myopic”
But, of course, its not at all myopic to wreck other codes for a year (if it came to that, hopefully it could be avoided but with the FFA starting to look at Docklands, likely to take over a revamped Adelaide Oval, probably taking Cararra because Robina can’t be upgraded, and potentially any new multi-purpose stadium in Perth, the AFL would be left with no grounds in its 3 main cities) so your favourite could be here at massive expense for a month.
I’m all for hosting it if it can be shown that it can be done without massive taxpayer funding, and without too much damage being done to the AFL and NRL (personally, I couldn’t give a toss about the NRL, but its needs are important in this as well).
At this stage, I still am not convinced Australia can host a World Cup. We don’t have enough cities with demands for the 40k+ stadia, or that can cope with the transport and accommodation requirements.
To some extent, the stadia and transport could be overcome (and there is a case for many billions of dollars to be spent on public transport simply to make for the underinvestment of the past 40 years). Accommodation is a bigger problem, that needs to be privately funded, and I can’t see such massive investments being made in the larger regional centres for a return that might last two weeks.
World Cups are far bigger than the Olympics. They are also harder to host because they must be spread across so many cities. Australia does not have those cities.
The FFA apears to be trying to take grounds with long term contracts in place from other codes, and then expecting those codes to just give up. The AFL has stated that the MCG would be available, the FFA then starts spruiking Docklands to journalists and talking (however briefly) about taking the MCG for 16 weeks. You wonder the AFL gets angry about such antics?
It is incumbent on the FFA to let everyone know their plans, and to have reached some sort agreement before the bid is put in. Far from “global citizens”, Australia could (in soccer circles at least) be come a global laughing stock if a bid goes in and then the FFA has to turn around to FIFA and say “well, actually, we can’t use that ground and that city is not viable” which is precisely the course being plotted now.
Mister Football said | December 31st 2009 @ 6:39pm | Report comment
(Comment deemed poor by Roar community - click to read)
jimbo said | January 1st 2010 @ 9:44pm | Report comment
No. Pip and Timmuh,
you’re still not getting the gist of the argument. The MCG and Etihad are not required to stage a WC in Australia.
The only thing the FFA had to supply to FIFA by Dec 09 was confirmation of the intention to bid and written financial guarantees that the bid and WC staging will be funded.
FFA have successfully completed that following the State Premiers meeting with the Prime Minister recently, where intention to bid was confirmed and all the state premiers along with the PM signed on the dotted line. That means whatever the WC Bid and the WC costs, it will be fully funded and guaranteed by the Federal and all State governments.
The detailed plan is not due till May/June 2010.
The FFA and the Federal government are also looking at the option of staging the World Cup in Australia without playing any games at the MCG and Etihad at all.
With the disruptions and likely compensation costs it would be cheaper and easier to build a few new purpose built demountable rectangular Stadia, like London is doing for the Olympics.
And South Africa for this year’s WC;
http://m.sa2010.gov.za/node/564
Redb said | January 1st 2010 @ 10:35pm | Report comment
Jimbo,
Oh gee do you really think they wont use the MCG – oh no. How can the world’s sporting capital miss out on staging games in the World Cup??
If you think you can gain some leverage by arguing the “we’ll ignore/bypass you line” good luck with that
The FFA needs the MCG more than the other way around. Don’t kid yourself kid.
Redb
jimbo said | January 2nd 2010 @ 12:14am | Report comment
Absolutely not Redb and I know for a fact that it is one of the options the FFA are costing for their final WC plans.
Do you honestly think that the FFA and FIFA are going to hand over $1Billion dollars to the AFL – one of its main rivals? Really?
The AFL and Melbourne people are shooting themselves in the feet by making such a fuss and asking so much compensation. You are going to miss out.
Melbourne is now known as the AFL Capital of the World.
Redb said | January 2nd 2010 @ 8:59pm | Report comment
(Comment deemed poor by Roar community - click to read)
Timmuh said | January 3rd 2010 @ 11:34am | Report comment
“The detailed plan is not due till May/June 2010.”
But details of planned venues need to be in place now, at least enough to be a starting point for negotiations on the final venues for the bid. That does not appear to be the case. Perhaps they do, and the news just isn’t getting out; I hope that is the case.
The FFA seem to be just making the presumption that if they name a venue they will get it, without any consideration of the practicalities involved.
The other codes seem quite prepared to support a bid, if adequately compensated for inevitable gate, sponsorship and television losses; and if they maintain access to enough of their venues to run a competition.
“The MCG and Etihad are not required to stage a WC in Australia.”
Maybe the WC doesn’t need the MCG, but I really can’t see how it would do without it. Certainly the WC bid can not do without Melbourne. Australia lacks cities large enough – not just venues, but cities that can handle the accommodation and transport requirements – to cope with hosting games, to take away one of the few that certainly can handle games, and even the final, is just plain ludicrous. The MCG and expanded “bubble ground” are the obvious answer, if the new rectangular field can have its capacity enlargened at a reasonable cost.
“That means whatever the WC Bid and the WC costs, it will be fully funded and guaranteed by the Federal and all State governments.”
“Whatever the costs” … I certainly hope you are wrong there, but I suspect that you might be correct, and the photo op is deemed worth whatever taxpayer’s money the pollies think they can get away with.
Does anyone else experience any dread with governments and a sporting organisation agreeing on a blank cheque on an unknown quantity? Is there any chance at all that any successful bid would be run with any semblance of financial discipline?
MV Dave said | January 3rd 2010 @ 11:45am | Report comment
“But details of planned venues need to be in place now” The English bid hasnt finalised their stadiums yet, neither have the USA…whats the rush they have until May? That will allow for further negotiations! Where is the problem?
Timmuh said | January 3rd 2010 @ 12:07pm | Report comment
The biggest problem is that at this point they don’t even seem to have a starting point for negotiations; with governments, with ground operators, and with the sporting bodies who have a contractural right over the ground for a prospective WC period.
Australia is different to the UK, as other sports are the key stakeholders at all the nation’s existing venues and there is more doubt as to whether stadiums can be made available – and whether Australia could actually handle a World Cup if it was won. The English bid has also produced a shortlist of venues, quite probably not all would be used but they do have a point to start from and a list for FIFA to pick from. http://www.worldsoccer.com/news/england_reveals_2018_venues_news_293021.html
15 venues across 12 cities. Australia may struggle to reach 10 realistic venues in 8 cities.
MV Dave said | January 3rd 2010 @ 12:16pm | Report comment
“The biggest problem is that at this point they don’t even seem to have a starting point for negotiations; with governments, with ground operators, and with the sporting bodies who have a contractural right over the ground for a prospective WC period.” How do you know that? What inside knowledge do you have to what is going on behind closed doors? or like most others you are relying on the current round of chest thumping and grandstanding for your info?
Timmuh said | January 3rd 2010 @ 12:46pm | Report comment
As I said, “don’t seem to”. I didn’t state categorically that they don’t – but made it clear that is an opinion.
I hope they do have more than they are letting on, because they need to to by now, but it does not seem to be the case. If they did, and had starting negotiating, the AFL would be more aware of what was going on rather than the type of shenanigans we’ve seen over Docklands.
The FAA have to do the convincing, of government, of FIFA, of ground operators and other sporting bodies, and of the public – so far, they have produced precisely nothing (at least in the public arena) except to state that the rectangularisation of the MCG was brielfy considered, and is not part of the picture, and time is running out.
MV Dave said | January 3rd 2010 @ 2:09pm | Report comment
“The FAA have to do the convincing, of government, of FIFA, of ground operators and other sporting bodies, and of the public – so far, they have produced precisely nothing (at least in the public arena) except to state that the rectangularisation of the MCG was brielfy considered, and is not part of the picture, and time is running out.”
1. The govt is working together with the FFA to produce the bid so l’m not sure why they need convincing as they have already confirmed …they are convinced the WC will be great for Oz,
2 FIFA only want to receive the final bid so they dont need any convincing until after May 2010,
3 the gound operators will be very keen to have the biggest sporting event played on their turf as has been seen by the rapid back track from Etihad management who are now very keen to have games,
4 other sporting bodies…well really its just the AFL who are kicking up a stink (NRL will be able to use a set of brand new/refurbished stadia after the event) lets face it and they will fall into line once negotiations are completed,
5 and of the public…well all the polls l have seen are massively in favour of hosting the WC (eg The Age had a record 12,000 plus respondents to their poll situated on the general sports tab which ran something like 79% for). Really its only the local code zealots who are holding out as they dont want Sokkah to be given any leg ups by this event being held here. The general public will be massively behind this bid no question.
6 time is running out? for who? the end line is in May 2010 to have the bid details ready… 5 long months
Midfielder said | January 1st 2010 @ 9:58pm | Report comment
The WC only requires 10 stadiums.. FIFA require 12 to be put forward which they will pick the best 10.
As I have often said if Victoria can only offer the MCG then so be it… we should say thank you for your stadium….it is not the big deal people seem to be making of it…However my understanding is many Melbourne folk believe because of Melbourn’s status as a sporting city it should have at least two stadiums…
The 10 logical stadiums..
Brisbane .. Suncorp
Gold Coast … expanded
Newcastle … expanded.
Sydney … Aussie
………………Homebush
……………..Blacktown or Cambeltown
Canberra
MCG
This is eight stadiums
Add
If Needed North Oueensland
The Gong if needed….
Add if needed
SA
WA
This gives 12 stadiums
So its totally up to vic gov to decide either expand the new stadium or have only one stadium … and only one small grant of fed Gov money spend in their state…
jimbo said | January 2nd 2010 @ 12:23am | Report comment
Mid,
FIFA don’t have regulations, they have guidelines and the number of stadia is between 9 and 12 – SA are using 10, Germany had 12.
So we could get away with 9 stadia if we want.
One stadium over 80K for the opening ceremony and final and 2 stadia over 60K for the semis. The rest over 40K.
Recommended.
They also recommend different cities for each stadium, but 2 SA stadia are in Johannesburg and London bid has 3 stadia in London and 2 in Manchester, so having 2 or 3 in Sydney or 1 in Campbelltown, Wollongong, Central Coast or Newcastle with each classed as separate cities etc etc.
It can be done without any AFL parks at all if we want to and it will save the FFA $1Billion.
M1tch said | January 1st 2010 @ 10:19pm | Report comment
Im over this now.
FFA or the gov simply needs to arrage some compo for the NRL,AFL and ARU for the time the codes cant play and its all sweet.
Redb said | January 1st 2010 @ 10:38pm | Report comment
(Comment deemed poor by Roar community - click to read)
Grue said | January 2nd 2010 @ 10:10am | Report comment
I take it you’ve burned your Victory shirts, then…and membership
jimbo said | January 2nd 2010 @ 12:08am | Report comment
Do you think the FFA would be so unwise to give $1Billion dollars to one of its main competitiors?
For that money the state governments and federal governments could build 2 or 3 brand new rectangular stadiums that the NRL and ARU would be glad to share and cooperate with the WC bid.
We don’t need any Melbourne AFL parks to host a WC in Australia.
Kurt said | January 2nd 2010 @ 2:15am | Report comment
I’m with you all the way Jimbo. The fact is we Victorians simply aren’t worldly enough to host any WC matches. Host all the games in NSW and QLD – that way these states get all the ‘benefits’ whilst we continue to wallow in our status as non-global citizens. Perhaps we could start a Facebook group, or maybe an online petition? You and me together can make it happen Jimbo!
Beast-A-Tron said | January 3rd 2010 @ 4:39am | Report comment
“…whilst we continue to wallow in our status as non-global citizens.”
Hey it can’t be all that bad, Americans weren’t global citizens until 1994.
AndyRoo said | January 2nd 2010 @ 8:35am | Report comment
Jimbo the AFL have allready said “have the MCG” so it will be part of the bid.
It seems even Andrew demetriou is less hard core about Aussie rules than the Kurt, Pip, PH, MC, Bever and RedB. And thankfully Buckley is negotiating with demetriou rather than the ARMU (Aussie rules middle aged ultras)
Kurt said | January 2nd 2010 @ 8:37am | Report comment
Middle-aged! The nerve!
AndyRoo said | January 2nd 2010 @ 8:54am | Report comment
But I did a smiley…I thought that meant you could get away with saying anything.
Mister Football said | January 2nd 2010 @ 9:06am | Report comment
(Comment deemed poor by Roar community - click to read)
jimbo said | January 2nd 2010 @ 10:14am | Report comment
Yes but they want $1Billion compensation as well if the WC is played in Melbourne.
I don’t think the FFA has that sort of money and Frank Lowy isn’t about to give the AFL and Demetriou – his biggest rival that sort of financial boost to play a couple of football games at the MCG.
AndyRoo said | January 2nd 2010 @ 11:00am | Report comment
It’s only ARMU that want the 1 billion. Andy D has only put up a price of 10m and a couple of tickets to the group stage.
Mister Football said | January 2nd 2010 @ 11:36am | Report comment
(Comment deemed poor by Roar community - click to read)
AndyRoo said | January 2nd 2010 @ 6:08pm | Report comment
Would welcome him coming out and saying publically that he is taking the MCG off the table. I think Oikee was also hoping for the AFL to do just that as well.
Announced to many cheers from ARMU I am sure and fantastic PR for AFL.
Beast-A-Tron said | January 3rd 2010 @ 4:35am | Report comment
“Frank Lowy isn’t about to give the AFL and Demetriou – his biggest rival that sort of financial boost…”
Honest statement there, I’m glad that you’ve considered the business side of things.
Frank has stakeholders and among other issues, why the hell would he give the AFL money? Likewise, Demetriou has stakeholders and among other issues, why the hell would he give the FFA free stadium use (and seasonal disruption)?
You are correct, they [FFA & AFL] are rivals, adversaries; they aren’t supposed to co-operate with each other, therefore quid pro quo must take place.
So for all the those like minded fans out there, is Mr.Demetriou still the devil? I eagerly anticipate the response elicited from anti-AFL zealots – but my expectations are zero.
Redb said | January 2nd 2010 @ 9:05pm | Report comment
(Comment deemed poor by Roar community - click to read)
AndyRoo said | January 3rd 2010 @ 8:03am | Report comment
What BS, I was pointing out that a deal was practically done. The AFL have already said the FFA can use the MCG but can’t use Docklands which is fair enough.
Sick of all the high and mighty talk about 1 bn in compo…sorry 3.4 bn and grandstanding from fans when for all intents and purposes the only issue between AFL and the FFA is docklands and personally I don’t even want Docklands as part of the bid. it’s an oval and privatley owned. The MCG is also an oval but it’s also iconic.
Pip’s blabbing which is sufficient causation to take the MCG off the table is rubbish and I was pointing out that dealing with the AFL proper would be a hell of a lot easier than dealing with Pip and co.
Australian Football said | January 3rd 2010 @ 9:26am | Report comment
AndyRoo,
hear, hear…. well said, all very true..
~~~~~~
AF
Redb said | January 3rd 2010 @ 9:02pm | Report comment
(Comment deemed poor by Roar community - click to read)
AndyRoo said | January 4th 2010 @ 8:27am | Report comment
But that was the main point of my initial comment which was really in responce to Jimbo at first….then I read a few of Pips posts and decided to add the rest.
Jimbo the AFL have allready said “have the MCG” so it will be part of the bid.
Probably a bit cheeky throwing you all in with Pip though, he has dropped a few more doozies soon after.
jimbo said | January 3rd 2010 @ 12:15am | Report comment
I’ve not seen any offer from Demetriuo or the AFL to share the MCG or Etihad.
This is the last thing said by the AFL publically about it:
“Mr Demetriou accused the World Cup bid team, led by his old friend and former AFL teammate Ben Buckley, of being disrespectful.
He said he was not interested in working out a compromise for the World Cup. ”It’s not for the AFL to come up with solutions for FIFA and the FFA. The language has to change,” he said.”
And this was Buckley’s last public comment:
“Mr Buckley said last night the AFL’s stance will mean Victorians would miss out on the World Cup action. ”Our preferred position, and the one we’ve worked towards, is to use the MCG and Etihad Stadium as World Cup venues,” he said
”If the MCG and Etihad are not included we would have to relocate World Cup games away from Victoria and that would be a real shame for the people of Victoria.”
Demetriou is “not interested in working out a compromise” and Buckley is going to “relocate World Cup games away from Victoria.”
Kurt said | January 3rd 2010 @ 2:52am | Report comment
Here you go Jimbo
“Demetriou said the AFL accepted that they would not have access to the 100,000-capacity MCG for up to 10 weeks if Australia won the right next year to host either of the World Cups. But he declared Melbourne’s other major venue, Etihad Stadium, off-limits to the bids by Football Federation Australia.”
“…We would make the MCG available for 10 weeks, which is ours under our agreement, but we need Etihad Stadium to be able to conduct our season. If we haven’t got Etihad Stadium and the MCG, we can’t run a season.”
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/afl-rules-out-etihad-stadium-for-any-world-cup-games/story-e6frexni-1225808542945
It’s obviously irrelevant now as we’ve all agreed that all WC games should be held in NSW and QLD, but the offer was made.
Redb said | January 3rd 2010 @ 5:53am | Report comment
(Comment deemed poor by Roar community - click to read)
Australian Football said | January 3rd 2010 @ 12:21pm | Report comment
I think you lot have forgotten what you were protesting against… But I agree if the AFL do not want a successful Australian Football World Cup in Australia then Jimbo is right… Buckley should then consider not taking it at all to Victoria…
But in saying that, I’m sure that the Melburnian football loving community, MV Dave, Art, Mahony, NUMV, and all of the MV and Hearts supporters will crush any anti-football protagonists who are trying to stop the biggest sporting event on earth…
Beast-A-Tron said | January 3rd 2010 @ 2:34pm | Report comment
“…then Jimbo is right…”
About the no offers to share the MCG or Etihad? Or Rundle Mall being in Brisbane?
“will crush any anti-football protagonists who are trying to stop the biggest sporting event on earth…”
I don’t know why but this sentence kind of reminded me of that Simpsons episode which parodies the founding fathers signing their their declaration of independence:
Owner: Please, sir! You’re destroying my establishment!
Man: We just created the greatest democracy on earth, you low-life commoner! [kicks him]
jimbo said | January 3rd 2010 @ 1:14pm | Report comment
We know exactly what we’re up against Redb
The FFA are looking at all options.
Redb said | January 3rd 2010 @ 9:05pm | Report comment
(Comment deemed poor by Roar community - click to read)
Australian Football said | January 3rd 2010 @ 12:48pm | Report comment
“Of course we would avoid things like finals because it doesn’t make any sense to go up against a final. We would suspend our season. ” said AD
Beautiful Demetriou—–so no football of any kind at Etihad during the Football world cup… So if you don’t plan to play during the World Cup at Edihad what’s the problem; why tie up a stadium with no football being played on it…? He sounds like a little spoilt child—-no that’s my toy not yours… Mommy said you’re not allowed to play with it …. shiiiiish
~~~~~~~~
AF
ItsCalledFootball said | January 2nd 2010 @ 1:42pm | Report comment
Because the best options is no disruption to the AFL season at all, no billion dollar compo and no need to reply to mister BC AD, Mister Football.
I agree with jimbo – keep the Victorians out of it completely.
Elbusto said | January 3rd 2010 @ 8:20am | Report comment
I agree with you Itscalledfootball. Victorians, particularly AFL supporters, are so up themselves (sporting capital of the WORLD – yeah sure) that it would serve them right to miss out on the Football World Cup completely.
Instead they can sit back and watch their peculiar brand of suburban drop ball while the rest of the World enjoys the World Game without them!
pimbo said | January 2nd 2010 @ 1:53pm | Report comment
Mister Football,
where did you get the $3.4 billion per annum?
And what about the value to the Australian economy of the Socceroos, A-League, Youth League, Women’s League, U20s, U19s, U17s, Premier Leagues, State Leagues, Juniour competitions, AIS, Football Academies, etc etc etc
Asian Cup , Asian Champions League etc etc
Pay TV, International TV rights etc etc
Souvenirs, merchandising etc etc
FIFA World Cups, World Cup bids, international tournaments, travel, accomodation etc etc
People employed in football etc etc
Must be worth at least a hundred billion $.
Mister Football said | January 2nd 2010 @ 2:30pm | Report comment
(Comment deemed poor by Roar community - click to read)
Al said | January 2nd 2010 @ 4:41pm | Report comment
The AFL came up with the $3.4 billion figure (why should the FFA care). The AFL like to come up with magic numbers from their random number generator, like the millions of kids enrolled in auskick (despite the fact that being a pupil at a school that has qualified for an Auskick one off session counts as a statistic), that South Africa is burgeoning with Aussie Rules talent by the hundreds of thousands and that exactly 0% of their players are on drugs.
Craig Eyles said | January 2nd 2010 @ 3:56pm | Report comment
KB
In fact, I believe you don’t even reside in Australia, so what gives you the right to have an opinion on what affects Australia & our sporting culture??
Mister Football said | January 2nd 2010 @ 4:23pm | Report comment
(Comment deemed poor by Roar community - click to read)
Australian Football said | January 3rd 2010 @ 11:31am | Report comment
Mr F, once a drama queen always a drama queen… Since when do you and Redb speak for the NRL…? Back from Phoenix already I see; so much for leaving your note on the door…. “You are leaving”…
Kurt,
you owe Jimbo, Norm and me an apology…. Let’s have it..
~~~~~~~
AF formerly KB
Beast-A-Tron said | January 3rd 2010 @ 2:24pm | Report comment
In fairness, the author has expressed deliberate views on the AFL & NRL. I myself don’t comment in pure-soccer threads, I mean I would like to but I don’t think I’m welcome. But I digress. How is this not a cross-code thread?
Redb said | January 2nd 2010 @ 9:07pm | Report comment
(Comment deemed poor by Roar community - click to read)
matty1974 said | January 2nd 2010 @ 9:12pm | Report comment
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-profit-down-by-8-million-20091124-j34n.html
according to this report, AFL turnover in 2008 was $327Million. Just a lazy $3.003 billion short of the figure mentioned on this thread.
MV Dave said | January 3rd 2010 @ 7:43am | Report comment
From Andrew Tate in todays Age:
“REST assured when December 2, 2010 rolls around and Australia has won the right to host the 2018, or 2022 World Cup, Melbourne will no longer be subjected to images of famous AFL personalities destroying soccer balls. No, once it’s in the bag, you can bet self interest and 10 years of advertising revenue on the fact that soccer will be universally loved by all sections of the media — and maybe even in parts of Docklands. Mark it down that the whole country will be on board — not just (as Johnny Warren famously wrote) the Sheilas, Wogs and Poofters . Now if only the FFA can find a better name than Melbourne Heart for the new ALeague team.”
It doesnt really matter what anyone thinks the bid will be in place by May 2010 and then the hard work begins. All this grandstanding now will not matter one iota once the bid is in as December approaches and excitement builds. Public opinion is already overwhelmingly for the bid and will grow as decision time approaches. Can imagine 30,000 gathered at the new stadium waiting for the decision… and the winner is…?
Intersting side note it seems one of the ‘”famous AFL personalities” referred to above, one R Barassi (who infamously was on the front of the Hun punching a deflated Sokkah ball recently), lists in his things to do in 2010 of going to see the Socceroos play in the WC in South Africa?
Beast-A-Tron said | January 3rd 2010 @ 1:59pm | Report comment
“…images of famous AFL personalities destroying soccer balls”
Ah man that is fairly hilarious. Where can I find such images?
Elbusto said | January 3rd 2010 @ 8:08am | Report comment
Football the world game – AFL the mouse that roared – but nobody heard!
Midfielder said | January 3rd 2010 @ 9:55pm | Report comment
It is foolish to attack the AFL as a small local sport…. It is by any means a major sport in the southern states… has massive influence and connections in these areas…thus in the Australian context it is a major sport and should be shown respect for that..
The smarter thing to do is be aware of the AFL … its limitations and its strength … accept football past management practices… With a clear head simply move forward one step at a time… consider 2004 and compare to 2009… two new teams coming in… more likely four… training academies being built… FA cup format being developed… a junior development program to keep footballs best…
Fox already have offered a new 5 year 300 million deal two replace the remaing four year 68 million dollar deal… but they want options the FFA are not prepared to give … but this if nothing else shows how far we have come … remember the RL deals ends in 3 years and is only 80 million with 16 teams…
The issue of Melbourne in the WC is past now … the Dome is rightfully AFL’s .. the MCG has been provided .. many thanks must go to the AFL for this… now the Vic gov get decide if it wants to invest coin in the development of Swan street for not only football but RU as well…
But and it is a big BUT its is over the more it is talked about only adds to how stuipid the whole thing is… it is now in the hands of the Vic gov / nay the vic people to make up their mind if they want a second stadium in the WC… I think they will but if they don’t it won’t make any difference to the bid…
Redb said | January 4th 2010 @ 6:27am | Report comment
Voice of reason. Good post Mid.
Redb
p.s. any chance the waves were bigger in the rivers around Byron?