Where is the noise around our World Cup bid?
By Adrian Musolino, 5 May 2010 Adrian Musolino is a Roar Expert
227 Have your say
Related coverage
- Football news
- World Cup Favourites news
- World Cup Roar of the Crowd Competition news
- Football World Cup - South Africa 2010 news

Australia's Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and FFA Chairman Frank Lowy center left. AP Photo/Rob Griffith
As excitement builds for the start of South Africa 2010, there is, sadly, no correlation of excitement or even traction in Australia for our very own World Cup bid, despite the decision on its success or failure looming in December.
With the deadline for final bid documents less than a fortnight away, and with the FFA reportedly still locked in negotiations until very recently to secure the MCG (surely a deal breaker considering Etihad Stadium is off limits for the World Cup) with question marks over other stadiums, the perception of the bid is that it’s a faltering mistake.
This perception, however, has only been fostered by the lack of any sort of promotion and excitement generated within the country for the bid.
If a FIFA delegate arrived in Sydney or Melbourne today, what evidence would they find that Australia was even bidding to host the biggest sporting event in the world?
There’d be none, and the only news they’d read on the bid is the ongoing stadium saga caused by the protracted discussions to appease other codes – something that is unique to Australia’s bid and has, sadly, been the major talking point of the bid thus far.
Like the ambivalence around the A-League, the lack of clout at the FFA, with little marketing and media presence is having a debilitating impact on the World Cup bid, which is barely visible in the Australian community.
When was the last time you saw the World Cup bid promo video on your screens?
(On bid videos, how embarrassing that the World Cup bid promo video featuring Nicole Kidman that was shown to delegates around the world proclaims that Australia hosts the Indy 500!)
The last significantly visible World Cup bid promo I can think of off the top of my head was the A-League round when all teams had the ‘Come Play!’ insignia on their shirts.
There are no billboards or other promotions visible that are worthy of mention that are generating significant support for the bid.
As Craig Foster says, the game is in isolation – and the World Cup bid is suffering from this isolation.
In contrast to our rivals our bid is suffering in silence.
Qatar, one of our likely rivals for 2022 and too often overlooked when discussing genuine contenders, has been aggressively promoting its bid at home and abroad.
Not only did their bid feature prominently in the recent Qatar MotoGP round – an event watched by millions across the world, specifically in Europe – but they even went as far as advertising at the Bernabeu stadium during “Il Classico”.
The United States of America has been aggressively pushing its own World Cup bid within the country as part of a greater push to widen the popularity of its national team at a time when the game is substantially growing.
As executive director of the U.S. bid David Downs told my colleague Davidde Corran, “We think it is very important to be promoting the bid within the United States.
“On the one hand this is an election campaign where only 24 votes matter, and only one of those votes belongs to someone who is in the US, but it is very important for us, as in every political campaign, to have the support of the grassroots community.”
As Downs says, the World Cup bid’s success or failure won’t be judged on an Australian Idol-type popularity contest amongst the respective populations of the bidding nations – a signal of interest or want, if you will – but it needs grassroots support.
The lack of interest, unity and desire to want to host the event in Australia is concerning, and won’t go unnoticed – particularly when the other codes are dictating the World Cup bid’s agenda in the press and at the negotiation table over stadiums.
The excitement toward the bid won’t generate itself, particularly in a football ambivalent society like Australia’s.
To that end, our bid is failing.
Our bid has Nicole Kidman, Hugh Jackman and Ian Thorpe (appropriate considering Australia’s nauseating obsession with all things celebrity), but so what?
Is ‘our Nicole’ really going to sacrifice her next $30 million movie to mingle with FIFA officials in the corporate boxes of stadiums around the world?
You can’t help but think England’s David Beckham is a far better and more relevant spokesperson for their bid than our strangers to football.
One has to wonder (be concerned) why the likes of Harry Kewell, Tim Cahill and Mark Schwarzer, let alone former Socceroos such as Mark Viduka, aren’t more involved in the bidding process.
Our bid’s strength (only real strength) may be in social media circles (Australia’s Facebook bid page had 141,028 fans at last count compared to the USA’s 25,970), but this medium’s limitation is that it doesn’t set agendas (as well as being facile, at times).
The deafening silence from the FFA as the other codes have delayed on stadium negotiations to the brink of the deadline date for such negotiations to have been completed is one of immense frustration for football followers, and all this has been played out in the press with scant countering points on the sheer scope, size and enormity of what a World Cup would bring to Australia.
In this isolation and silence, other codes have been able to cast doubt on the World Cup bid and exploit the lack of strong leadership at the FFA to use their stronger popularity base in Australia to plant fears and exaggerations.
Andrew Demetriou must chuckle at how easily he rattled the World Cup bid’s cage with his posturing.
As the aforementioned Foster says: “It is high time Australians demanded more from those at the bargaining table. We are better, and bigger, than this. So get the deal done and stop the rot, for the love of God. If love of country is not enough.”
And it is high time the bid generated some excitement, noise and traction at home, so the doubters and skeptics can’t overshadow what hosting a World Cup means to this country.
If there is no want or desire for an Australian World Cup, then we should ask ourselves why we are bothering to bid for it for the millions it’s costing could have been better spent in stabilising the A-League’s foundations, supporting the grassroots of the game or, and this is a crucial and often overlooked point, finding ways to unite ‘old soccer’ with ‘new football’ and better tie the state leagues and former NSL clubs to the A-League and the National Youth League.
If the World Cup won’t have a united Australia behind it then we don’t have the right to host and sully the tournament.
If we want a World Cup in Australia we need to show it.
But that desire can only engulf the country if the flame is first sparked by the spruikers themselves – and those spruikers are conspicuous by their silence
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.

Kurt said | May 5th 2010 @ 4:16am | Report comment
Let’s consider this rationally for a moment. The FFA had two basic options when promoting the bid. They could position it as:
a) a nation building opportunity that benefits everyone, including other sports; or
b) an opportunity to destroy other football codes and ‘win’ the code war.
To be fair to Lowy, Buckley and co. I think they’ve tended towards option ‘a’ although have had the unenviable task of trying to sell the benefits of massive government expenditure on what is essentially a month long soccer-themed party when all serious economists know that the benefits of ‘mega’ events are either overstated or non-existent.
Soccer journalists and supporters have however firmly opted for option ‘b’ – that is, they see the WC bid as a chance to take market share from other football codes and have trumpted this fact loudly at all opportunities.
So consider this: On one hand the AFL, NRL etc. are being asked to co-operate, give up their contractual rights to stadia, put their competitions on hold etc. and on the other hand they are being told that the WC will lead to their destruction. Putting aside whether or not that would actually happen (and I don’t think for a moment it will), if that’s how you’re going to present the WC bid how exactly do you expect supporters of other sports to react? I know, I know, soccer has copped it for years and this a chance to return fire. But just because this approach may be emotionally satisfying doesn’t make it particularly productive.
I suspect it’s too late to gather any serious public support behind the bid – the whole discussion has become too poisonous and nasty for that. Soccer fans had their chance and they blew it.
AndyRoo said | May 5th 2010 @ 9:12am | Report comment
Best quote I have seen was a football fan critisising Foz for riling the other codes up. “When we get in the car where going to run you over, can you please give us the keys?”.
Diesel said | May 5th 2010 @ 12:18pm | Report comment
Mahony said | May 5th 2010 @ 4:34am | Report comment
The only poison around the bid comes from the AFL and troglodytes like you. If we were to look at this “rationally” – we would see the NRL’s reasonable caution and questioning based upon commercial reality and the AFL’s hysteria based on a mixture of fear and it’s un-Australian desire to scuttle the bid.
Kurt said | May 5th 2010 @ 4:41am | Report comment
Your honour, I present exhibit a.
punter said | May 5th 2010 @ 7:40am | Report comment
You must admit he has a point, when I saw this article I thought, OK here we go again, another article for the AFLcommrades to dig their teeth into.
While you mention that football fans & jounalists alike want to destroy all football codes, only the AFL, led admirably by their CEO (so not just the fans & jounalists) but their officials too come charging in.
Yeah, you get the odd criticism from the NRL & RU guys, but nothing compared to you AFL guys. While the NRL & RU are following their sport with passion, it seems the AFL guys have 2 passions,1 is following the AFL & 2 is slagging off the football WC.
BigAl said | May 5th 2010 @ 12:35pm | Report comment
.
and exhibit b
Emperor Penguin said | May 5th 2010 @ 12:51pm | Report comment
spot on. The NRL will back the bid, but require a few minor concessions. The AFL is completely hostile to the bid (“we won’t accept second place” and other garbage).
Why is AFL so threatened by the FIFA World Cup?
Concidering the stadium situation and compensation, they are already the primary benefactor of the bid… whats their problem?
B-A-T said | May 5th 2010 @ 2:17pm | Report comment
It’s called looking after your stakeholders.
JamesP said | May 5th 2010 @ 2:24pm | Report comment
Both the NRl and the AFL have publically backed the bid. And both have said however that they will not back it at ALL costs. e.g. NRL want their state of origin to continue.
The AFL have a major issue with Stadia as they already play out of them. The NRL have no such problem as they play out of suburban grounds, and have much more to gain from the World Cup in terms of new rectangular infrastructure.
Michael C said | May 5th 2010 @ 3:18pm | Report comment
only the AFL you say??
Late Oct 2009 Fairfax journos including Michael Lynch (the Age) foretold that rival codes would have to shut down and leave host cities……
response at the time – was lead by the NRL with News ltd stories of threatened revolt.
Now – until early Decemeber 2009, Demetriou did not budge from support in principle and wait for detail. The anti WC charge was in fact led by the NRL. The NRL just didn’t have the ‘muscle’ of the AFL over 25 odd year exclusive contracts at major venues primarily used and funded on the back of AFL.
And the worst case scenario that Demetriou spoke of re the MCG being re configured and Docklands unavailable was taken by soccer scribes as a total anti-WC posturing rather than a posturing to avoid the worst case scenario…………which are 2 totally different things.
btw – David Gallop also vocalised concern for some clubs. Many people seem only to remember the AFL worst case comments…….and have conveniently ignore A. the context and B. that the NRL was outspoken too.
So, pelase, ……don’t go on about ‘only the AFL’…….that’s not true.
Michael C said | May 6th 2010 @ 10:39am | Report comment
Punter
please reveiw you assertion about “only the AFL”.
Not so.
The Bear said | May 5th 2010 @ 7:44am | Report comment
Next time an AFL world cup comes knocking lets hope there is some infrastructure that Football can also use in the decades to follow. That would be only be fair.
Michael C said | May 6th 2010 @ 1:35pm | Report comment
The Bear – - we haven’t needed an AFL world cup…….and yet soccer has benefitted hugely from being able to access the MCG over and over,
and Docklands (Etihad),
(not to mention NRL geared facilities up north).
Tifosi said | May 5th 2010 @ 5:16am | Report comment
Interesting article from The Australian
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/sport/rivals-made-to-wait-for-world-cup-payback/story-e6frg7mf-1225862279293
AFL will shutdown over two weeks towards end of tournament among other things.
I still maintain that the venues proposed are an insult to the World cup and that this bid should fail
because of that. Only in Australia could someone think a Cricket ground is suitable for a world cup.
Frank lowy promised a legacy of stadiums but has failed i believe and the FFA shouldnt be bidding for a World Cup until such a time that it benefits football only.
Thats probably 30 years away and the FFA shouldnt be submitting half baked bids and I Seriously doubt FIFA are going to be too impressed with what they see.
Baz35 said | May 5th 2010 @ 7:55am | Report comment
Well there’s the rub, dude. If the ovals aren’t good enough for FIFA then we probably shouldn’t be hosting.
Historic rectangular code crowds justify two 40,000 plus seat stadiums in this country, one in Sydney and one in Brisbane, and they have already got them (ANZ kinda makes it two in Sydney which has proved 1 too much). Of these, they are justified largely on the crowds pulled by Rugby League.
Between Australian football and cricket there are already 6 40,000 + stadiums that are filled regularly (predominantly Australian Football).
To think there was any feasibility of a bid full of purpose built rectangular stadiums was ridiculous. It may be an insult to the WC to present a bid with a whole lot of ovals but its a far bigger insult to the average Australian to spend billions of dollars on a whole lot of rectangle white elephants
Anthony said | May 5th 2010 @ 9:29am | Report comment
“Only in Australia….” is the most popular football code played on oval grounds. Deal with it!
slickwilly said | May 5th 2010 @ 12:10pm | Report comment
would suggest the line between ‘a legacy of stadiums’ and a bunch of financial white elephants dotted around the country is very thin indeed
Alders said | May 5th 2010 @ 7:01am | Report comment
Kev’s got an election coming up doesn’t he? And it’s a world cup year. I feel a bandwagon coming on.
VooDoo said | May 5th 2010 @ 7:09am | Report comment
“If there is no want or desire for an Australian World Cup, then we should ask ourselves why we are bothering to bid for it for the millions it’s costing could have been better spent.”
Good point. Millions of taxpayer dollars have been spent on bidding for a tournament that the majority of Australians simply couldn’t care less about. So many soccer pundits in the media muse about why the bid isn’t gaining traction, when the fact is that there is no want or desire here to host it. If only Australians had been given a say in what else the $40m could have been spent on…
The Bear said | May 5th 2010 @ 7:39am | Report comment
141,008 (currently) facebookers want the World Cup in OZ.. that’s a good indication that there is groundswell. And by the way, Australians had a say in the $40 mill, just as millions of Australians have a say in how roads and hospitals are built…it’s called political process.
CraigB said | May 5th 2010 @ 7:47am | Report comment
sorry Bear – I don’t recall any party standing on a pro or anti world cup bid platform. 142,000 you say why thats .6% of the Australian population. This is your evidence of groundswell??? The fact is most people don’t care. Thats not to say that people won’t embrace it if it gets here, but if it doesn’t it won’t mean too many sleepless nights around the country.
The Bear said | May 5th 2010 @ 7:55am | Report comment
The government reflects the zeitgeist of the time; the people chose an optimistic and progressive government. This said party got behind a very global sporting event at the bidding process. That’s how political process works. And it’s not a matter of getting a World Cup because it’s only a matter of time til it arrives here.
Ken said | May 5th 2010 @ 9:01am | Report comment
That’s one way to look at it. Another way is that they pandered to Kevin Rudd’s ego and told him if he pays for the soccer world cup people will cheer and kiss his feet and build statues. So he did his standard thing and threw money at it and stood around telling anyone that would listen about his grand visions for Australia… and then with the posturing done he found something else to waste money on.
Note: For those looking for code war flames, this isn’t one – I bear soccer no grudge for taking advantage of easily led political creatures, any claim that it is a sign of the countries desire though is a bridge too far.
B-A-T said | May 5th 2010 @ 2:30pm | Report comment
Fed Labor may be ideologically progressive, but they are most certainly not optimistic, looks like you’ve fallen for some grade-A spin.
Parties that shy away from individualist policy are inherently pessimistic, i.e. ‘people are idiots and too irresponsible to take care of themselves, therefore they need lotsa gubmint help!’
Ken said “…any claim that it is a sign of the countries desire though is a bridge too far.”
Point exactly. If it were the countries’ desire, then there wouldn’t be any need for government intervention. If there was a quid to be made from the WC, the free market would have absolutely jumped on it by now (especially given its… ‘The World Game!’), plus we all know how everything government touches turns to crap.
apaway said | May 5th 2010 @ 12:23pm | Report comment
How many people cared about the Olympic bid? And then what happened…
So many people posting on this subject seem to assume that football fans desperately want the WC bid to
succeed as a way of wiping out the other codes. What a load of crap. I’d love to see the WC hosted here
but not for one second do I see it as a way of winning this mythical battle people refer to as the code wars.
In Germany ’06, Australian fans outnumbered almost every other nation, and many who were there were
nominally fans of the other codes. I took two mates from rugby backgrounds to the Australia-Uruguay game
in ’05. General agreement was that it was the greatest sporting event they’d ever been to. Both of them are
hugely in favour of the WC bid. In fact, the only dissenting voice in the whole process has been Andrew
Demetriou who managed to galvanise some support from AFL fans by making hysterical and unfounded
claims about the damage a successful bid would do to an AFL season 8 or 12 years into the future.
B-A-T said | May 5th 2010 @ 2:48pm | Report comment
442, TWG forums Q.E.D.
Michael C said | May 6th 2010 @ 10:40am | Report comment
Apaway -
Demetriou’s claims were not regarding a ‘successful bid’,
they were regarding certain elements that the AFL had to ensure were NOT part of a successful bid.
Do you understand the distinction???
Chris said | May 5th 2010 @ 8:26am | Report comment
and 230,000 Facebookers joined a group entitled “Save Matthew Johns”. Put’s it in sharp perspective.
In any case it is largely irrelevant – as like anything Kevin Rudd has touched in the last two years it will fall apart.
Kurt said | May 5th 2010 @ 9:11am | Report comment
Not to mention over 1.4 million who joined the group “I want to punch slow walking people in the back of the head” and over 800 thousand who joined “I flip my pillow over to the cold side”.
The Bear said | May 5th 2010 @ 3:53pm | Report comment
There’s a difference between wanting and doing…. but yes I fall into that category. Pretty accurate indicator the ‘ole facebook.
Mister Football said | May 5th 2010 @ 8:34am | Report comment
141,000 put their name on a facebook page.
Meanwhile, 600,000+ Australians pay good money to be AFL members, triple the other codes combined.
Cpaaa said | May 5th 2010 @ 9:40am | Report comment
AFL Footy page on face book has 18,000 fans. I think thats a better comparison dont you Pip.
Chris said | May 5th 2010 @ 9:50am | Report comment
and the Central Coast Bears (ie: a club that does not even exist yet) has twice as many Facebook fans as the A-League champions Sydney FC.
Pretty stupid debate to get into really…
Baz35 said | May 5th 2010 @ 9:55am | Report comment
Yeah, facebook fans are much higher value then club season ticket members….
punter said | May 5th 2010 @ 7:42am | Report comment
Funny how Australians call themselves a sporting nation, but care less about the worls biggest sporting event?
slickwilly said | May 5th 2010 @ 12:14pm | Report comment
why is that funny… i like soccer (like it a lot in fact) but i can get my fix from europe each year… i dont follow the a-league as it lacks in quality (on that score foz is right) and have no compelling need to indulge in a month long event that at best, has dubious economic benefit …
B-A-T said | May 5th 2010 @ 4:08pm | Report comment
Sport, like culture, is not homogeneous.
But yeah, continue with that rhetoric that we’re somehow ‘unsporting’ for not taking an interest in ONE sport of several to be enjoyed. Hope you realise how much BS that contains.
Soccer is a sport, but sport =/= soccer.
mds1970 said | May 5th 2010 @ 7:54am | Report comment
I tend to agree with Kurt – after the “insular bogans” talk from the soccer people, attitudes have hardened. And even with the recent concessions made to the AFL/NRL, attitudes to the bid aren’t going to change now. The battle lines have been drawn and set, and there’s no chance of anyone who currently opposes the bid warming to it now.
Adrian wrote a piece a few weeks ago about how Australians have gone cold on hosting major events. And there’s reasons for that – the bidding processes have swung the advantage too far in favour of the event promotors at the expense of taxpayers. Taxpayers have to pay more and more while people of dubious repute like Ecclestone from the Formula 1s or Sepp Blatter walk away with the loot – and the feeling among many is that these events no longer deliver value for money. That the NSW economy has gone backwards compared to the rest of Australia since the Olympics only heightens that feeling.
But with the World Cup, and the poisonous emotional language that has been used on forums such as The Roar, it’s too late to garner public support now. Even if there were benefits for other sports and for the economy, the “insular bogans” and “eggball warlords” talk has hardened attitudes.
Redb said | May 5th 2010 @ 8:05am | Report comment
Take any straw poll and ask Australians if we’d like to host the soccer World Cup and 99% would say yes on immediate reflex.
Then ask them how much they really care if we don’t? – I suspect a lower positive response.
Then ask them if it means your preferred football code and some of its clubs could be possbily be put into extinction and the the positive responses go down again.
This is the problem for Lowy and Co. People care about other codes in Australia much more.
They never had any right to expect that Australia as a nascent soccer supporting nation is even ready to host a World Cup and it would be all consuming for the populace especially given how they went about the bid with regard to other codes. As Tifosi said its a land half filled with cricket ovals for its major stadiums.
Let’s also get something straight, you cannot compare the AFL and NRL response and credibly beleive they should be equal.
NRL
1. Utilises mutliple suburban stadiums in Sydney, ANZ rarely half filled and SFS rarely filled in mid season.
2. Relies on TV audiences over crowds for revenue.
3. Likely to benefit from rectangular stadium legacies.
4. Administratively is still grappling with its own structure.
Lowy and the FFA initially went for the jugular of the AFL, to the very core of the competition and its gravitas, the MCG and Etihad. Ignoring the new venue in the bubble stadium, its first agenda was to shut down the AFL by removing the only stadiums AFL play at in Melbourne.
It’s going over old ground now, but the early proposals included a major redevelopment of the MCG to sink the playing field and rectangularise the MCG meaning an extensive down period for pre and post construction.
Let’s remember this was the FFA’s first choice, it never considered the impact on the AFL and has been chasing its tail ever since.
AFL and soccer are competitors and don’t get along. Lowy was using the WC bid to elevate association football in this country and provide a leg up on its current 3/4th position in the landscape.
Let’s not mince words.
Mister Football said | May 5th 2010 @ 8:37am | Report comment
Well said Redb.
The FFA agenda was obvious from day one – they made their bed, and they have to lie in it now.
Emperor Penguin said | May 5th 2010 @ 1:05pm | Report comment
I’m shocked, I agree with you guys for once… for a boxing analogy…
FFA were a shambles initially and Lowry went for killer blows against AFL and NRL, but they missed and sent the FFA reeling.
The difference though is that the AFL has been laying the boot into the FFA ever since while the NRL meekly argues with itself about itself in the corner.
The ARU doesn’t even get in the ring.
Emperor Penguin said | May 5th 2010 @ 1:08pm | Report comment
Actually, you could say this is true of the A League as well. They have hyper-extended themselves going too hard too early.
Matt83 said | May 5th 2010 @ 8:46am | Report comment
“AFL and soccer are competitors and don’t get along. Lowy was using the WC bid to elevate association football in this country and provide a leg up on its current 3/4th position in the landscape.”
Seriously, why don’t they get along? According to the AFL, Aussie Rules is the greatest game in the world and have nothing to fear from Soccer. Yet we see Ron Barassi attempting to crush a football on the front page of the HS, Andrew Demetriou joining hands with David Gallop complaining how hard done by they are with the Bid ignoring the fact they are both in a bitter war in Western Sydney if we are to believe the Daily Telegraph. Then Demetriou releases his henchmen in the media, saying “Clubs will die”, “Cities will crumble” and “the world will end” and as RedB says people especially in Melbourne start to panic about the state of their game they cherish so much.
I would find it extremely hard to believe that Ben Buckley, FFA CEO and the ex AFL No. 2 would give no consideration to the AFL and his former Boss in organising the Bid.
st.penguin said | May 5th 2010 @ 9:23am | Report comment
“…ask them if it means your preferred football code and some of its clubs could be possbily be put into extinction…”
I have to admit I haven’t been following this story closely, but why would a four week soccer tournament in 12 years time cause an AFL club to go into extinction? (Not being sarcastic, I just dont understand the argument)
apaway said | May 5th 2010 @ 12:32pm | Report comment
That’s because there is no argument, st.penguin, just unfounded hysteria. Given that 2 clubs representing
inner-city Melbourne suburbia recently drew almost 90,000 fans to a club game (Carlton-Collingwood) I find it
difficult to believe that any rational AFL fan could think that hosting the WC is a threat to their code.
Redb said | May 5th 2010 @ 12:52pm | Report comment
It’s not just 4 weeks, it is 6 to 8 weeks due to pitch preparation before hand.
If the MCG was to be rectangularised including sinking the playing surface and providing additional seating they dont do that stuff over a weekend ya know. 3-4 months of work. Taking it out of action for most of the AFL season.
The inclusion of Etihad meant reducing any existing AFL compliant stadia to 1 at Geelong (25K capacity) in all of Victoria. Other grounds like Princes Park could be redeveloped at a cost, but still hold only 30K.
Thus reducing exposure for sponsors and gate receipt revenue for clubs at home games.
If the FFA had approached this with a win-win attitude, the AFL no matter its internal fears of giving any oxygen to its competitors in the middle of its season would have little choice to assist and comply.
In simple terms if the WC was to be held in February there would be no problem but that would interfere with the European leagues which FIFA avoids. But that’s not the AFL’s problem it’s the FFAs.
st. penguin said | May 6th 2010 @ 7:42am | Report comment
…so the reduced sponsorships and gate receipts in twelve years time would cause an AFL club or even the entire code to go out of business. Seriously, that’s your argument?
Cpaaa said | May 5th 2010 @ 10:05am | Report comment
RedB i must say that of most AFL fans you have the fairest of comments regarding Association Football.
So i agree with you that 99% of Australians would like the WC here in 18/22. Even those that say they couldnt care less about it now, will jump on board 10 years down the track.
So i will ask you a question:
Do you think that by staging the FIFA World Cup in 18/22, will have a significant negative effect on Australian Rules Football (smell the fear scenario) , or will it make both codes stronger in the long term ?
I believe to stage the Worlds largest sporting event in Australia will only put that question to rest, and only after the last remaining World Cup not yet held in Australia, that all codes will know their place.
Redb said | May 5th 2010 @ 10:24am | Report comment
Cpaaa,
A combination of both, but the opportunity seems to have been missed to make it a win-win due to the tension between the codes. AFL fears the global reach and gravitas of soccer and it’s biggest event, soccer was perhaps a bit too keen to sink the boot into the AFL by attempting to grab both strategic Melbourne stadiums to suffocate the code.
There is no doubt a WC would vacuum sponsorship and provide a boost to the promotion of the A League,etc. This could have a negative impact on some AFL clubs that are struggling to make ends meet.
Whether sponsors get it right or wrong by backing a certain horse is open to question, but they sense opportunities and a WC would be a huge opportunity thus drawing sponsorship away from some AFL clubs in a WC year.
The AFL’s job is to minimise the damage, the FFA’s job is maximise the potential a WC would bring to their code in Australia. Those goals are not complementary.
Marsh said | May 5th 2010 @ 8:36am | Report comment
Kate Ellis is cute.
Kurt said | May 5th 2010 @ 9:13am | Report comment
Good call.
Dogz R Barkn said | May 5th 2010 @ 9:38am | Report comment
…+2
James said | May 5th 2010 @ 11:22am | Report comment
I concur.
Michael C said | May 6th 2010 @ 11:13am | Report comment
Ditto
Mister Football said | May 5th 2010 @ 8:37am | Report comment
I put this up on another thread, it’s of interest here, the article is not available online:
Herald-Sun, Tuesday, May 4 2010
Page 16
Walker steps in over MCG battle
Michael Warner
Powerbroker Ron Walker has become embroiled in the bitter brawl between the AFL and Football Federation Australia over soccer’s World Cup bid.
Mr Walker confirmed he had been asked to join negotiations over use of the MCG for soccer’s two-pronged 2018-22 grab for glory.
With just 10 days to go until Australia’s World Cup bid must be lodged with FIFA, the sport’s international governing body, the AFL is yet to sign off on the release of the stadium.
“I’m representing Melbourne as a member of the board (FFA) – and I’m doing my best,” Mr Walker said.
“There are negotiations going on. (Soccer chief) Frank Lowy and the Premier (John Brumby) are involved and also myself to try and settle it. And I’m confident that good sense will prevail in the interests of sport.”
A senior FFA figure claimed on Friday the AFL wanted $100 million in compensation to give up the MCG – a figure the league flatly denies.
More likely, the dispute centres on a failure by Australians soccer chiefs to give a written assurance to the AFL that it can run an uniterrupted season in conjunction with the World Cup.
The FFA is believed to be reluctant to seek such a guarantee from FIFA for fear it will play into the hands of rival international bidders.
Thr Rudd Government has poured $43 million of taxpayers money into the event bid, due for submission on May 14.
Marsh said | May 5th 2010 @ 8:40am | Report comment
Btw, how on earth did they make the mistake that the Indy 500 was in Oz!
Mister Football said | May 5th 2010 @ 8:42am | Report comment
The bid has been an embarrassment from the start.
bazza said | May 5th 2010 @ 11:10am | Report comment
I tend to think that the bid is pretty half-arsed and will not be surprised if it doesn’t win
Emperor Penguin said | May 5th 2010 @ 1:13pm | Report comment
Just like everything else the current gov has done. I agree with most of Kevin Rudds policies and agendas, its just he has failed to deliver fully on any of them.
Sould be renamed Mr 30% Completed…
Mister Football said | May 5th 2010 @ 7:36pm | Report comment
There’s a fair bit of truth in that – polls are already showing the possibility of a one term government – pretty much everything this Government has touched has sunk like a stone – ultimately, the WC bid might be another casualty of an inept Government.