Everyone has seen the articles coming out at the moment regarding the use of the MCG, and more particularly, Docklands Stadium as World Cup venues and the impact it will have on the AFL season.
So there is no need for me to recount this tale in this article.
On the one hand, the claim of the MCG being out of action for 16 weeks from AFL circles was cynical creativity at its best. On the other, there is some merit in allowing the AFL the use of Docklands to enable their season to continue to help ensure minimal disruption and greater harmony.
This brings our attention to why Docklands has had to be mooted in the first place.
Originally the new Swan Street Stadium was mooted as the second venue, but despite being “future proofed” with foundations to allow for 40,000-plus, the unique construction of the roof meant a price tag in the region of an estimated $150 million was required to upgrade it. This is not far off the $130 million that was required for the temporary MCG adjustment into rectangular configuration.
Melbourne loves its sport, it is the sporting capital of the country. Therefore, the Victorian and Melburnian public would not stand for losing World Cup games interstate or to other venues during the biggest sporting event on the planet.
Especially when you consider Melbourne’s pulic transport system and centrality of the CBD is better suited to a World Cup tournament (cue the pictures of Australians celebrating during the 2006 world cup all being of fans at Federation Square).
The Melbourne public will want to host the final. This stoush by sections of the Melbourne establishment, including figures like Barrassi holding a deflated football on the front cover of a major newspaper, undermines that.
The solution therefore, is in the fact that Swan Street is a Government funded stadium (unlike privately owned Docklands who don’t want World Cup games due to lack of profitability).
The State Government should be pressured by the Victorian sporting fraternity (AFL and football/soccer fans and personalities alike) to foot the bill of Swan Street redevelopment.
This can be justified as firstly it was their lack of foresight in allowing an expensively prohibitive roof in the first place, more importantly it is very much in the public (more World Cup games) and state interest (local unity for an iconic hosting of the Final). Federal Government money can be used in part but also towards any modifications to the MCG (for about 8 weeks of course).
There is a strong case that the money is in the public interest. Both the AFL community and the football community win. The AFL community can continue to have their competition played out of Etihad and can continue to have the season play during any World Cup (Baseball was allowed to continue during USA 1994, apparently).
The football fraternity wins because its rectangular stadium gets modified to the point where it is no longer a boutique stadium, but big enough for A-League blockbusters and Socceroos games. Docklands will no longer need to be used which will make local football fans very happy given their intense dislike for the venue.
Also, to use Eddie McGuire’s term, “AFL won’t be giving a free kick to their biggest rival”.
Rugby league and rugby union would be smart in supporting this as well. For the disruption of one season, they get a generational-long adjustment to a major piece of infrastructure suitable to their sport.
This will allow both State of Origin and Union internationals to be played out of a large enough rectangular world-class stadium without having to go through a stadium set to be owned by the AFL (Docklands).
Not to mention the more World Cup games that it will allow to be played in Melbourne, meaning more hosting and training venues built.
This in turn means development of rectangular facilities which can be used by their teams (Wallabies, NSW and QLD) as well as visiting football teams (Socceroos and overseas opponents during World Cup Qualifiers and Asian Cup Qualifiers amongst others like women’s and youth teams).
This way, the infrastructure built won’t become either “white elephants” or only temporary.
Everyone gains from this solution in some way.
All forces, including the fan bases as well as the sporting organisations, should unite and pressure the Victorian Government to spend what would normally be an unjustifiable amount of money on upgrading Swan Street, while ensuring unity behind a bid for the biggest sporting event on the planet.
AndrewM
Guest
Tifosi, Mate you are wrong.. Australia happens to be the only viable country in Asia at this time to host it.. Japan has already hosted it in 2002, pretty much ruling them out. Asia has the biggest population in the world and we sit on their time line.. This bodes VERY well for viewership/sponsorship. So yes Australia is a very very lucrative market to host the WC, from dollar terms, not to mention safety and infrastructure ... It ticks ALL the boxes. USA whilst would be somewhat attractive, already had it, and Americans are ingrained in their own culture.. Can't see fifa giving this another go so soon. If anything the code wars which exist in this country, especially because of the AFL, fifa would be quite interested in dropping a bomb.
Michael C
Roar Guru
with exhaustive work with.....for....KB, we found that the whilst the AFL paid $30 million up front for the right to retain an option to take full ownership at the end of the 25 period, that KB wanted to know what the option exercising fee was......and we found finally that that was $30 flat, so, a total direct spend of $30,000,030. I'll go back to the threads I posted the data and links on and we perhaps ought do a stand alone article on the venue.
Michael C
Roar Guru
btw - back in May this year, Tim Pallas, the state govt minister for major events was stressing that the stadium could be expanded to 50,000 in the case of a World Cup bid, that's why it was so surprising that a bid came along and this was not to be the case,.....and one just sat there wondering what they heck about $300 million of tax payer funds had just been spent on, a white pigmy hippo (i.e. not quite a white elephant!!!).
Michael C
Roar Guru
Nelson - yeah, I'm confused a bit on this issue - - well informed people are certain in their minds it's 25 years, I thought the moratorium was a 10 year period. AFL assumes ownership after 25 years, that's 2025, it opened in 2000. All in all, it just seems astounding that it's been completely discounted and that the FFA have sailed a course of greatest obstruction by aiming directly at the AFL and Etihad. It's very interesting. I rang SEN on Thursday arvo and queried this and Francis Leach was certain that it was 40,000 for 25 years. So, he may be expecting a call back no Monday now!!!! ;-)
Tifosi
Guest
FIFA couldnt care less about Australia, its too small of a market in population and in money. Thats why when we made a bid for this years FIFA Club world cup, they said sorry, and gave it to Dubai instead. Money talks in this game and Australia doesnt have it. They have bigger fish to fry, namely the USA. Hence why im absolutely certain 2022 is heading their way. Remember, capture 10% of the USA market and you have already more than the whole australian population.
Springs
Roar Guru
The Christmas truce game, where they were still enemies, kicked a ball around, sang carols, then killed each other the next day. It did a lot didn't it?
MyGeneration
Roar Guru
Wars are started by governments, not soldiers. I reiterate, if you're talking about uniting people, there are more important things to spend our money on. It's a "fairies at the bottom of the garden" reason for chasing a World Cup.
Mr
Guest
Or when soldiers are no longer enemies, the game that unites them is football.
Springs
Roar Guru
Aye, the closest any sport has got to uniting people was when North and South Korea marched under one flag as Korea at the Sydney Olympics.
Springs
Roar Guru
I understand that. I was referring to the arrogance that Schwab or whoever has said that FIFA will embrace the challenge. This sounds like if it hosts the Cup here it is to overtake AFL and League and make Australia a soccer nation. Now for this reason I am totally against hosting the World Cup, if it is a celebration of sport like the Olympics (which brings together far more people/nations than the soccer World Cup does) then fine. But if it is to overrun Australia with football fanatacism, then no. And I understood the 'uniting' comment. I was saying the WC will not unite Australians like they think it will, it will unite soccer fans around the globe, but not Australians.
Freud of Football
Roar Guru
Thanks again Chris for lending weight to my argument by discrediting yourself. Comparing the WC or organising a WC with socialism?
MyGeneration
Roar Guru
In over a century of organised sport, including the revival of the Olympics and the emergence of World Cups of various stripe, we have had two World Wars and numerous attempted genocides. There is no evidence that any sport has mitigated any of these 'facts'. So I'm with Springs to some extent. Schwab's statement may or may not be arrogant, but it is essentially baseless propaganda, and no good reason for hosting a World Cup. There might be economic and trade arguments, but there are probably more big deals done on a golf course than in a football stadium, so let's host the World Cup of golf, if that's the reason to have a World Cup. I would have thought the reasons to have a World Cup were first to make a profit out of it, second to raise our profile as a can-do nation, and third to have a great party. If we're going to have to listen to rubbish about bringing the world together, I might reconsider my support. Spend the money on sustainable agriculture, that'll bring the world together.
NCB619
Guest
I'd have to agree with both of you here. Yes, at the moment, and I think it always has, divided this nation.But worldwide, there is no other single sport that can unite nations as much as football / soccer. It's 'uniting nature' really depends on which way you look at the sport.
Mr
Guest
Springs, true there are some sports that can bring people around the world together, Pragmatically lets assume that all sports are equally uniting for this exercise. The difference with football is the sheer scale of following it enjoys globally. Therefore Schwab is correct in his statement. It's not arrogant, it's fact.
Mr
Guest
The voice of common sense.
Turner
Guest
How can you judge that? I imagine the RWC final against ENGLAND was probably more intense. Down to the wire and against a side most Australians can find on a map. I must agree with Alex though. The Welsh provide something that has no comparison in this country. A decent national anthem to begin with haha. I'd love to have an interest in Australian football but the supporters here are too pretentious for my liking.
Springs
Roar Guru
How arrogant. 'Football has the ability to bring people together like no other sport can.' At the moment it is driving many people across the nation apart. So these guys want the World Cup in Australia so Australia can become a 'football nation'. It seems it is not a celebration or great for the Aus economy or whatever. FIFA wants to take over the world. Australia is not part of Asia it is a part of Oceania. FIFA may think it is a part of Asia because Aus competes in the Asian Cup, but a football side is not a nation. Australia is already a football nation. It will never be a soccer nation.
Matt
Guest
I imagine the Rugby World Cup final would have topped it. We werent just qualifying then. Just a gues thoiugh as I didn't watch either. I have to agree with Alex though. The Welsh at Millenium is like nothing we have in this country.
Midfielder
Guest
Brendan Schwab from the PFA has come out fighting too ... he is well respected within the professional associations around the world ... funny how it all could be backfiring... From 442... http://au.fourfourtwo.com/news/118591,fifa-will-embrace-oz-challenge.aspx?r=rss 'FIFA Will Embrace Oz Challenge' Jon Ritson Dec 11 2009 13:37 EXCLUSIVE: FIFA’S World Cup decision-makers are well aware of Australia’s fiercely competitive sporting market and are more likely to embrace the World Cup challenge than be driven away by current code disputes, according to the PFA. Both the AFL and the NRL have voiced loud concerns this week over the potential impact a World Cup would have on their respective codes. This has led to fears that such squabbling could seriously damage Australia's chances of earning either the 2018 or 2022 tournaments. However PFA CEO Brendan Schwab is confident that FIFA will see Australia as too big an opportunity to ignore and that powerful 'positives' will holder greater sway than rival codes' concerns. "Australia is part of Asia and this country hosting the World Cup would allow FIFA and the game to make a massive footprint in this part of the world," Schwab told au.fourfourtwo.com today. "I think FIFA understand how important it is to have the World Cup in Asia and how big the potential market is. "Football has the ability to bring people together like no other sport can. I think a World Cup for Australia would provide a wonderful sporting legacy. "I think they are wrong to think that FIFA would be pushed away by the challenge, I think they would be emboldened by it. I don't think it will drive a wedge. "What they will look at is a Prime Minister backing this bid, letters of support from levels of government, football fans and of course proof of the financial commitment that backs up that support. "FIFA's executive committee understands just how competitive a sporting market this is and a World Cup would be a tremendous opportunity to further drive football forward. "I travel around the world and people are well aware of the sporting set up here. They liken it to the United States of America." Schwab said a World Cup on these shores would be important in the near future and for Australians in the decades that would follow. "We have a chance to host an event that would leave all the foreign visitors to enjoy the tournament and then head home saying to themselves that Australia is a football nation," he said. "We are also left with the infrastructure from the event which Australians will benefit from." The PFA boss reiterated that FIFA's drive to spread the world game far and wide was a powerful factor in making a final decision on hosting rights Schwab added: "FIFA is driven by its desire for the development of the game. These people are football missionaries. "Asia is a market that has huge potential and Australia is a big part of that market. I firmly believe Australia will be a greater nation for hosting the World Cup."
matty1974
Guest
As far as I'm aware one Melbourne journalist has said it will cost $150M to upgrade bubble dome. Truth is none of us really know exactly what the deal is. If the roof was not an issue, surely it would still cost at least $50-$80M to put in another 10,000 plus seats. So, I think that there is an economic term for this, it really will only cost an additional $70-100M to upgrade. This addtional cost would surely be covered by the economic impact of a couple of hundred thousand football fans and tourists setting up camp in Melbourne for a month?