I’ve suggested a few times of late that one of the fatal flaws of FFA’s 2018-2022 World Cup bid is that the FFA, as an organisation, cannot possibly be expected to manage this process alone.
This is due to two reasons. Firstly, they are yet to run the game overly well without Kevin Rudd’s $32 million cash injection into their operational expenses account. Secondly, for a bid so heavily dependent upon the acquiescence of BOTH the AFL and NRL, it is rather naive of our Federal Government to hope or expect the FFA to pull it all together.
Thus, Kate Ellis has all but taken over – announcing a new taskforce to attempt to rescue the bid from looking as much like a waste of Government funds as it seems to be thus far. Is this an attempt to give the bid a realistic chance or just to give the impression of the Government having taken reasonable steps?
In the Fairfax press, Dan Silkstone continued to push the anti-AFL agenda on this. However, between the comments of the AFL (let’s choose to believe even just half of them), and this move by Kate Ellis and co, it suggests: “The FFA says it has met 14 times with the AFL during the past year and a half and that it is mystified by the claims of poor communication and disorganisation coming from Demetriou. True or not, some of that communication will now come from Canberra rather than from soccer’s headquarters in Sydney’s Oxford Street.”
The obvious point is that even now the FFA is unwilling or unable to cover the subject of host city exemptions with FIFA. Perhaps Kate Ellis’ cronies will have better luck.
P.T.Barnum
Guest
Wanna join the world cup bid circus? Lots of monkeys, smoking mirrors, flashing lights and the odd lion tamer. No cost spared. All covered by the Australian tax-payer. The "no worries (suckers)" circus. And I even hear they may be looking for a new ring leader... KB?
DiCanio
Guest
You are all a bunch of lonely, sad clowns
MV Dave
Guest
What are you talking about? Of course it is a comparison...obviously one you dont want to acknowledge. BTW They are averages and so the bigger games get many more viewers. Yep 64 Grand Finals or Super Bowls...what ever you want to put against the WC, the WC will be bigger...starting to get the picture? Thats why it would be great for us to hold it in 2018/2022. You guys who know little about Sokkah have really no idea of the WCs size and scope.
Michael C
Roar Guru
That comparison doesn't really work though - does it. One is a domestic match primarily marketed/geared towards a single domestic market. 98.7 million US viewers. compared to 93 million global viewers, no comparison at all really.
Michael C
Roar Guru
Why is 'questioning' regarded as 'death riding'???
MV Dave
Guest
Yep 64 Grand Finals in a month; "World Cup ratings are astounding Posted Jul 25th 2006 5:41PM by Anna Johns Filed under: Sports, Industry If I were in charge of an American television network, I would be brainstorming ways to get Americans excited about soccer. The ratings for World Cup are out of this world. The average television audience, worldwide, for the month-long tournament was 93 million viewers for each match. 93 MILLION. And more than 5.6 BILLION (yes, that's a 'B') watched matches live in 54 global markets. The final match between Italy and France garnered an estimated 284 million viewers. Reuters compares those numbers to America's biggest sporting event, the Super Bowl, and determines that World Cup numbers are equivalent to 64 Super Bowls. Mama mia" http://www.tvsquad.com/2006/07/25/world-cup-ratings-are-astounding/ Would post FIFA figures but of course you wouldn't believe them.
Michael C
Roar Guru
Did I actually suggest anywhere that Ellis et al could actually 'Do it'?? I might've, if I did, I appologies, but, Ellis in a bikini vs Abbott in budgie smugglers........no contest there.
Michael C
Roar Guru
Mate - 64 GF's in a 4 week period......really?? Germany - 2006 - avg attendances 52,491 for 64 matches. The Final in Berlin drew 69,000. FIFA venues 40,000 ish plus. Let's see. AFL season 2009 gave us 65 matches with crowds above 40,000. Those 65 matches averaged 55,531. And do you know what?? All the advertising revenue/merchandising/ticketing/stadium revenue stayed in Australia rather than going into a Swiss bank account. Once in a life time versus every single year. btw - AFL season 2009, 5 finals plus 11 H&A games exceeded the 69,000 of the FIFA WC final. Remember for a minute too - the AFL GF packs in 99,000......the Berlin 2006 FIFA final seating 69,000........chicken feed by comparison!!!! ;-) .....okay, I jest on this point. But - again though, you illustrate a lack of understanding of the football economy of Australia populated every single year by the AFL not to mention chucking in the NRL too for good measure. btw - world cup maximum audience only applies for the Final,....and to suggest a 100% global viewing audience is ridiculous in the extreme......let alone that the only beneficiary of whatever hypothetical figure is FIFA as they control the 'global' marketing of the event........'cos, it's a once every 4 year revenue raiser for them (90% of their four yearly revenue). btw - in assuming 'saturation' to potential market viewers - AlexV needs to consider that the AFL does have a level of international coverage (as does the NRL). AlexV also needs to consider that the AFL and NRL have previously rearranged seasons to cater for Olympics and C'wealth games and other impediments - however, never to the degree of what is being asked by a direct competitor. If it were as simple as a minor re-arrangement, then, 'no worries'.
Midfielder
Guest
Sad it is that AFL posters death riding the WC bid can be wrapped up in this way ... none the less it is our right to question and fib in Australia... Just for the record BTW ... The presentation by Nicole Kidman for the WC bid... what can I say I have just seen this but very very impressed ... http://player.sbs.com.au/theworldgame#/twg_08/ExpertView/WorldCupExtras/playlist/FFA-WC-bid-video/
Michael C
Roar Guru
Hmmm, Geoff Dixon and Qantas and soccer - - - isn't there a conflict of interest there??? Given Qantas as the major sponsor and all? ;-)
Michael C
Roar Guru
if this bid were not so reliant on other football codes (who happen to occupy the time and place that the FFA wants on behalf of FIFA) - then, correct, I should not comment. However, when my point of view that I have present in particular the last few weeks (that the FFA should NOT have been expected by the Fed Govt to organise this thing AND that it's actually soccer people in Australia who don't realise 'how big' this show is) - - has been seemingly vindicated by the Govt's effective 'take over', well. I reckon I've got a valid an opinion as the next person.
Michael C
Roar Guru
Chuq - as you put it ,...not having "the legal power" is a pretty good step towards being not 'capable'. Main point is that the bid relies too much outside of soccer and the FFA are not - and never were going to be - realistically able to pull it off under their own steam. The waiting game for most people is around Govt(s). A. the funding to and fro and B. the ability to placate the NRL/AFL/Cricket Australia etc. btw - 'obstruction' generally implies deliberately moving into the path of someone else, where as the AFL did not move themselves and Etihad into the path of the FFA - - the FFA chose to move themselves onto a collision course. There's a difference there - perhaps too subtle for some.
Mister Football
Roar Guru
Apt words - were the favourites.
mahony
Guest
Spot on Mark - as a long time civil servant in Canberra you can bet this task force is all the doing of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. Rudd runs a tight ship. He learned this from the Master - a certain Howard, J. The government is simply asserting its control over the bid and this is a great thing for football. The NSW government ran the Olympics bid and the Federal Government absolutely need to run this one. The FFA have done a wonderful job to-date, but now the financial guarantees are in - they don't own the bid anymore. The Australian people do.
mahony
Guest
I was very clear about what was rubbish. Furthermore, if you think that winning the tournament is a measure of its value - then it is pointless discussing it with you. Winning the World Cup is the sporting equivalent of a manned space flight program. We don't need to win it - we just need to be there. Any by there I mean here!!!!
Footbal Person
Guest
Actually were the favourites for 2022...............
Mushi
Guest
What is rubbish is that if you don’t support the world cup regardless of what ti may do to your code of choice then you have no aspiration for your country. What special kind of morons are we that the only thing our country can aspire to is host a football tournament that we have no hope of winning?
Mushi
Guest
Mr, What is the PWC report based on? All the articles I’ve seen have suggested it draws heavily on the Germany experience. Unfortunately I am unable to verify such claims as it has not been made available, personally I would like to see what assumptions have been made and I think that, given the level of public funds involved, we should be able to get such information. But I also ask this: what makes this PWC report some kind of incontrovertible proof? What has been leaked from the report can not be considered akin to the financials of a company. It is a study based on a series of multilayered assumptions. I’ve been involved with these studies before and they have, without fail, always come out in the favour of the side that they are being written for. I strongly doubt that PWC decided to take a different approach for this one. But you are correct that not all opinion pieces are equal. In this case we have a research fellow who appears to have actually conducted his own research and borrows from the research of previous world cups and an AFR journo who has displayed no original thought or insight in providing little more than selective figures which contradict his quote from a spokesperson. To answer your questions as to why would developed economies engage in such an activity for a second time: 1. Governments aren’t always the best decision makers, 2. Economics is not the only driver of policy, 3. Different situations lead to different outcomes, 4. Repeated hosts have a lower cost base and better certainty of the outcomes There are reasons to host the world cup which we may or may not agree with, but one of them is not the economic benefit.
Mr
Guest
Some are more equal than others. The PWC report is what COAG and the FFA are running with, not a comparison to a single city event. To put things in perspective - USA ('94) S.Korea and Japan ('02) hosted recent Word Cups and are bidding again for 2018 & 2022 (S.Korea for 2022 only). Taking aside all the nonsense in the Australian Op Ed pages, why would these advanced economies want to do it again if it were to be such a millstone round their necks? I'm waiting for the Easter Bunny.
Mushi
Guest
They are all opinion pieces. You are dealing with projections, based on assumptions that are based on other assumptions that are based on events which happened in a different place with limited similarities. Calling the numbers from the AFR “financials” is hilarious; they are selective excerpts from a private report they are not financials. Next you’ll be including all of Santa’s elves in the employment numbers for December.