Is FFA letting a wolf in amongst the sheep?

On attendances alone, the A-League is in the top 20 leagues in the world. Clubs make money from lots of other sources like overseas transfers and not just attendances.

The SIngapore consortium also wanted FFA to include a Singapore team in the A-League. FFA wanted a buyer with no strings attached.

"For example, why were licenses given out to regions that weren’t absolutely necessary (Far North Queensland and Gold Coast) when Australia’s most under-saturated markets (Sydney and Melbourne) hadn’t been fully developed?" At the time, a lot of fans were also of the opinion that the "one team, one town" approach was the way to go. Look at how much angst the Heart start-up caused, particular;y from Victory fans. The problem with that approach is that Australia only has five large cities, and perhaps two other "large enough" (Gold Coast and Newcastle, themselves both with their own troubles). And, of course, western Sydney had its own issue; but that was more the bid team itself than anything wrong with the concept. The thing I see as missing - and I am viewing this as a far less informed, casual watcher of Association Football - is a decision on which path the FFA wants the A-League to take. A high quality competition, which means fewer teams and concentrated in major cities - because regional areas can not raise the necessary cash to compete and the 5 Metros dominate the TV markets even beyond their population and economic dominance; or a lower cost, and lower quality, model that allows the game to reach more areas. I don't see that both are compatible. Even with a larger TV deal, including an FTA component. Higher income tends to lead to higher costs; look at the AFL, while there is more than enough money for Melbourne and North Melbourne to survive, the chase for the highest TV dollar is the very thing most likely to kill off the lesser supported clubs (themselves generating $25 in revenue, a ridiculously high amount in the Australian sporting context, to not even ensure bare survival). Where I live (Canberra) and my home (Tasmania) can only possibly enter on a low-cost basis. Especially Tasmania.

Beezlebub It's an excellent point, but this is the problem - when the Government disbanded the old ASF and NSL, paid out their collective debts, with the objective of starting from scratch, and with the secondary objective of sidelining the ethnic clubs, and everyone associated with them, where were the clubs going to come from? The only option was to bring in private owners wanting to put some equity in it. Now that the league is up and running, down the track, as one private owner after another does his money and drops out, there will be a move back to some form of member owndership model. Having said that, it should be noted that right round the world, there are no shortage of wealthy people happily pi$$ing their money up a wall, not just in the big countries, but everywhere.

I think the A-League would make it in the top quartile of leagues in the world, i.e. the top 50.

The problem with A league as I see it. The Australian AFL is the best competition of its type in the world (sure it is only played here, or very few countries) Rugby league in Australia is the best competion of its type in the world. (played by fewer countries). Football in Australia (our A league) would be lucky to be included in the top 100 football leagues in the world? (please correct me there is a stat for this). The general public want value for money when they spend money on their leisure time. Especially if you want to expand the game. The die-hard football fans will always go. These days the general public want to be entertained. If they go and are entertained then they will develop a full understanding of the game. This will expand the game in Australia. You cannot rely on the world cup every 4 years and hope the Socceroos put in a good performance. I believe the A-league players are getting paid a lot more than what the real value/quality of the A-league is. You then throw the marquee players in getting paid millions of dollars. In the current competition you would be lucky if the gate takings could pay for the marquee player alone. I believe the real aim of the A-league is for progression of footballers from junior to senior years. The ultimate cycle for football players in Australia should be: Play in A-league, get snapped up by an international club, represent Australia, come back & play in the A-league for a couple of years (before they retire) to mentor the young players. I believe this is how the football cycle in Australia should currently work. As this cycle continues then the value/qualtiy of the A-league will increase. Over time as the vaule/quality increases then the attraction to the general public will also increase. The clubs should be allowed to use venues that are suitable for their market. If their team makes the finals then got to a bigger venue (if available) The other option, for the A leauge, is to find 4 or 5 billionaires and hope they stay on for a few years.

good points and my understanding also of what was reported at the time.

What is odd is that the AFL is the biggest game in Oz, by that far it is not funny. Anyhow, they tried private ownership and it does not work. How do these cult sports ever think they will make it work? The only teams that can make cash in Oz, are Collingwood, West Coast, Fremantle, Adelaide Crows and Essendon. If you take on an A-League team it is a sinkhole to lose money. Noone makes money other than the players.

half owned, I think

Isn't Sydney FC owned by a Russian?

p.s. My comment above doesn't mean I think FFA have done a decent job. Far from it, it's been amateurish. They'd be better off calling in a giant corporate consultant like Price Waterhouse Coopers and getting them to explain to Ben B how to do it.

Davidde, that's all true, and Fozz said the same stuff, but who would conduct an independent inquiry? Who would pay those people to do it? Who would select who should conduct the "independent" inquiry? Why would FFA open their books to this lynch mob? It's not going to happen. The A-League is their toy. If you don't like it, tough.

That was not the reason. The investors were of questionable credibility and my understanding is that they had close ties with the gambling industry in South East Asia. There was never, in any case, any cash on the table. It is amazing how quickly rumour becomes fact.

Davidde, "For example, why were licenses given out to regions that weren’t absolutely necessary (Far North Queensland and Gold Coast) when Australia’s most under-saturated markets (Sydney and Melbourne) hadn’t been fully developed?" Answer: Because there was a recognition at the time that the A-League was stale and desperately needed more teams; the Fury and GCU alone had the cash and were outside the exclusivity agreements. "Or why was Don Matheson allowed to take sole ownership of a club without any penalties or assurances he wouldn’t simply walk away 12 months later?" Answer: Matheson had 2 partners, and due diligence was done by the FFA. When it became clear that the Fury would nowhere near meet their required average attendance of 8,000 and were losing money hand over fist, Matheson's two partners walked. Matheson then - nobly - continued alone, spending $5 million in of his own money to keep the club alive. The global financial crisis hit and Matheson was going broke and could not continue. Your comment displays zero understanding of the complexity of what "penalties" involve in the legal and commercial context. This is sloppy journalism. I too am a professional writer and I always make sure I know the context before I comment.

But have they allowed it to happen? Is it a done deal? One hopes not, the more we learn about this Ali character.

What's funny about this is that when Singaporean investors showed interest in buying North Queensland Fury the FFA declined because they wanted to keep the ownership of their A-League sides Australian (and Kiwi) so I don't know HOW they're allowing this to happen...

50% owner. not quite the same but bad enough if he is as bad as you say. What we need is a dodgy oligarch or american financier or italian prime minister...