- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
If the AFL needs any reminding of the risks associated with its expansion clubs Gold Coast and GWS, it could do worse than take a look at recent events over in North America with the NHL. While you can’t fault the motivation for expansion, that doesn’t mean there isn’t a chance it all won’t work out.
This is especially the case when you’re entering markets that traditionally have belonged to rival codes and aren’t close geographically to your so-called “heartland”.
The ice hockey example illustrates this perfectly, and it’s something the AFL – and even the NRL, should they choose to expand to Perth or Adelaide – simply can’t ignore.
The NHL has had several waves of expansion, but the issues now date back to the 1990s, when the league – either through relocation or brand new teams – expanded to include Dallas, Phoenix, North Carolina, Nashville, Tampa, Miami and Atlanta.
Obviously, these weren’t the kind of places you would otherwise expect to see much ice. The sport was not entirely foreign to these markets – given it already had a decent foothold in other parts of the United States – however it was well behind more established rivals. (Sounding familiar yet?)
The temptation, though, was in the numbers. Dallas, Miami and Atlanta are among the ten biggest markets in the US. Phoenix isn’t far behind and was experiencing rapid growth in the 90s. (The Gold Coast and western Sydney are “two of the fastest growing corridors in Australia”, according to Andrew Demetriou.)
We could continue the history lesson but the basic gist of it is this: the NHL’s southern expansion of the 1990s does not lack parallels to the AFL’s northern expansion of today.
Which is why it’s intriguing to note the NHL’s announcement last week that the Atlanta Thrashers had been sold to a group that will move the team to the Canadian city of Winnipeg. And why before that, it was intriguing to hear the Phoenix Coyotes were the team seemingly Winnipeg-bound.
The Thrashers’ owners claimed in court documents the team had lost more than US$130 million in the last six years. The Coyotes, who are now owned by the league, only stayed in Arizona after a US$25 million commitment from the city of Glendale to cover operating costs for next season.
Attendance-wise, both teams ranked in the bottom three across the league last season. Of the other teams in that group of southern cities expanded to in the 90s, the highest-ranking for crowd numbers was the Tampa Bay Lightning, which ranked 18th (out of 30).
The numbers aren’t great. The fact the Atlanta experiment is now over isn’t great. The fact Phoenix mightn’t be too far off relocation either ain’t great. You probably wouldn’t describe the NHL’s expansion to the southern markets as an “absolute failure”, mind you, but it’s more than fair to say it has fallen short of its objective.
So where, if anywhere, does comparing the AFL to the NHL fall apart?
Private ownership would be one area. The media in Atlanta are currently bemoaning the poor ownership of the Thrashers which meant the team was “never given a chance” to succeed. The AFL seem to be giving its two new clubs every chance to succeed and won’t have to worry about finding new owners should the former ones lose interest (or too much money).
The weight of numbers would be another area. An expansion involving two teams would appear to be a lot more manageable than one involving teams continually being added as the decade progresses.
But it would be naïve to think the AFL is immune to what the NHL is experiencing now.
Blind optimism is not enough. A lack of success can be fatal. Supporting the expansion teams is a really, really expensive exercise. Attempting to grow beyond the heartland doesn’t always have a happy ending. Not everything goes to plan.
There’s plenty the AFL can learn from the NHL.