The questions the football media won't ask

Discontentment has been brewing in the various elements of the football fraternity over the past few years. The problems of the Newcastle Jets and the outburst of former A League boss Archie Fraser was the catalyst that opened the floodgates of criticism of the current culture of governance of Australian football by the FFA.

Despite issues brewing for years, the football media has finally begun to pipe up with some assertiveness.

Part of the issue is that to be critical would often see one either on the outer or branded along the lines of being unpassionate on behalf of football.

This has led calls for a new culture, for example SBS blogger Jesse Fink has written in his “The Fraser Bomb” entry that “it’s incumbent upon me and anyone who cares to speak up about what’s going wrong … Only if we address what is not working can the game move forward.”

So when Fox Sports announced over the weekend that they were going to have Ben Buckley in the studio for their Magazine show Fox Sports FC, I thought I might put this so called new culture of constructive scrutiny to the test and email some questions.

The question/s related to the thorny issue of fan behaviour and policing at A League games. The football media and Fox Sports FC unfortunately did not present them. While I can understand they don’t want to bring up the awkward issue that opens the door for criticism from people outside the game, it is an important issue that needs discussion.

There are many fans who believe the FFA – as in many areas – mismanaged the security response which was to the detriment of the live match-day experience, attendances and community of fans who develop around clubs.

One can’t help but see the irony that it was this response from the FFA in response to behavioural issues that may have facilitated what they were trying to avoid – the undermining of the A League – and this is as relevant as many other issues in the A League’s current predicament.

The first part of my question to Fox Sports FC for Buckley was “Why did you choose the HATAMOTO consultancy firm to conduct the post season 3 security review when they had no previous football experience? Why weren’t fans engaged as a stakeholder in that review?”

It is worth noting that when they were first announced on 22nd December 2007, when many journalists are, of course, preoccupied with the seasonal festivities, SBS in an article titled “security to be stepped up” mention “FFA has contracted experienced security consultancy Hatamoto to review Australia’s minimum security standards …The group will work closely with local police, security contractors, venue managers and event organisers to identify and implement opportunities for improvement.”

But even a quick internet search of their fledgling website at the time would have shown that they were a new consultancy firm whose previous tasks were an ongoing relationship with the Sydney Ports Authority, and work with an organisation by the name of “Seiton Finance Pty Ltd” (whoever they are?)

No mention of football.

The individual consultants involved at best appeared to have some experience with previous Olympics, but that seems to be focussed more in terms Marine-oriented anti-terror issues.

This is without going into the fact that major football tournaments such as the European Championships and World Cups are a very different kettle of fish to other sporting events such as the Olympics.

If the FFA thinks Olympics experience is sufficient this underlies a naivety that is particularly alarming considering this institution is involved in utilising tens of millions of dollars in Australia taxpayer money on a bid for the 2022 World Cup.

European Championships and World Cups now involve extensive engagement with fan oriented groups in their security strategy, it is integral to the success of the tournament and the principle is trickling down into European club football.

The question of why the fans weren’t involved in the post season three security review and the A League security streategy therefore is highly important?

The issue of extensive engagement of fans (even if you don’t like them and they criticise you) is a factor that any adequately experienced security consultant would have raised, instead HATAMOTO evidently did not.

Mike Tuckerman, in a recent article on The Roar called Flares Don’t Belong In The A-League writes of the use of flares: “The practice merely gives credence to the use of private security consultants like Hatamoto …” is slightly revisionist as it is worth mentioning that at the tail end of post season 3, there were no flares lit in the level three area of Docklands where much of the NT hardcore were based throughout season 3.

An amicable solution was reached between the fans, stadium and Melbourne but the FFA persisted with HATAMOTO’s ill conceived recommendations anyway for such things as banning the Eureka flag, just as it persisted with the Sydney Rover’s bid.

The reason was, and is not, flares.

It was, and is, the same culture within the FFA that sees them inclined to wield too much power over the A League clubs, hence the current revolt from club owners such as Geoff Lord and Tony Sage, who want A League representation at FFA board level as well as greater autonomy of the A-League.

One can’t but help notice there is an interesting correlation between the timing of Hatamoto’s appointment, the implementation of their strategies taking effect, and the downward trend in A League’s crowds.

There is a fair argument, of course, that regardless, crowds would have trended slightly downwards for a variety reasons (prices etc). The real question is whether they would have trended downward so sharply and gained downward momentum as quickly?