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.
The Cattery
Roar Guru
"they have nutritionists for the nutritionists" lol That reminds me of the famous Costello line: "he's got muscles on his muscles!"
ilikelollies
Guest
"AFL teams dont suffer the rampant expenses involved in the NHL," Nothing could be further from the truth. They have 1000 aisstant coaches on the box, they have nutrionists for the nutrionists, they have councilors for the councilors, they send players to america mid season for no genuine reason, they need to find 50million in a pop of 10million and you make that statement etc,etc,etc. Good grief to quote Charlie Brown.
Republican
Guest
allblackfan I am told that their is much interest in our code amongst the black population, certainly more than anything we are ever likely to glean from NZ. Having said that, I am not an advocate to grow the code off shore, simply an observer. From a pragmatic view point, Saffa and PNG make alot more sense than NZ do in terms of all criteria bar the socio economic commercial bit - perhaps, which on its own, should not be used as an incentive to compromise the game as we know it.
Republican
Guest
Phantom I included the Riverina in my MIA demo simply because they are integral to the region.
Jason
Guest
A number of areas? The only hazy areas I can think of are the Riverina and maybe Broken Hill
Republican
Guest
Jason My apols if I offended your very PC sensibilities. You should ask Roar if there is a role for you as a vilification police - person. NB - I did say 'person as opposed to man so did I do good?
allblackfan
Guest
So what colour is the sky in the world you live in?
Sherrin-Burley-Faulkner
Guest
The AFL is aiming primarly at the black population in SA, and i dare say if they are offered some decent prospects by kicking a different shaped ball around, they will jump at the chance.
Sherrin-Burley-Faulkner
Guest
Australian football will IMO never be any sort of a threat to rugby in NZ, but small steps are beginning to emerge, currently Shaun Johnson who has previously played rep AFL in NZ has debuted for the NRL’s Warriors. http://www.worldfootynews.com/article.php/20110608162823411 And a bit more info on Hawthorns NZ scholarship boys.
allblackfan
Guest
You're right about RL's appeal to Kiwis, Republican. That's why all this talk about AFL expanding in NZ has always struck me as slightly, er, fanciful. But we're talking about value adding to the `product'. This is one area where the NRL holds a distinct advantage over the AFL. Generally, if TV is your paymaster then the more widespread coverage your game has, the more likely it is to boost your payday (I think the AFL broadcast deal is proof of this; AFL will get more money than NRL simply because it has greater coverage). As for moving into SA, good luck with that! The mainly white rugby-playing population is about 6 million (barely bigger than NZ) and the black population love their soccer!!
Jaceman
Guest
Redb Hold fire The Storm on live FTv into melbourne on a Sunday afternoon got 50K when they are doing well and they were live because the AFL game on FTA was a Melbourne low rating one - North vrs Adelaide. The Numbers were: Total S M B A P Nine’s Sunday Football Nine Souths vrs Storm 530,000 286,000, 50,000, 193,000, *** *** Seven’s AFL: North Melbourne Vs Adelaide Seven 469,000 22,000, 193,000 29,000 153,000, 72K Of course there were 2 other AFL games on Pay-TV and I'm not sure if the NRL game into Melbourne was 3 oclock live or delayed "live" (eg 4pm) but there was another NRL game on Fox from 2-4. Note the Brisbane NRL interest in a popular Sydney team is 2/3 of Sydney's NRL figure (maybe the Storms Qld players - perhaps the Storm will move to Brissy). I note the Melbourne AFL footy shows get at least double the number of viewers of the Sydney NRL shows in their respective home markets which perhaps shows the relativities better.
Jaceman
Guest
The Riverina I know has a lot more than 2 Aussie Rules clubs or do you mean licensed clubs??
Mark Young
Roar Guru
My mistake, just did some follow up reading and the cost of bailing out the metro was 'only' 300 Million, not one billion. http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/metro-damages-bill-330m-350-jobs-20100223-p0pa.html Still a lot of cash! Barry may well try and take back the NRL cash as well. It is hard to tell what will go but what is for certain is that he is clearly signalling that the state's finances are poor and there are going to be some pretty big cuts. And the moaning over football stadium or grand final cuts would be nothing compared to moaning over health, police, roads, rail or school cuts. As for Albo and Gillard, to put it gently, they won't be a factor in two years time, wheras the NSW taxpayers are the ones who could vote Barry out next election. As I said, watch this space.
Jaceman
Guest
Thanks $1BN for the cancelled Inner west metro? - you are not confusing this with the proposed cost of the North Westline The link says $100m although nothing from the old NSW Labour Govt would surprise... The RAS , AFL , Fed Govt have contributed to the RAS upgrade and Gillard/Albanese/Arbib who are keen on the project wont do Barry any favours in the future if he pulls the plug (esp on the North West line funding). Will Barry also take back the $45m NSW Labour gave the NRL to run the GF in Sydney for 10 years when there were no other bidders???
Jason
Guest
What the hell is a 'maori pedigree'. You make them sound like a breed of dog.
Redb
Roar Guru
"In the future, the other codes will have more money and the advantage the AFL has will be smaller, thus the fortunate situation now where they have a LOT more dosh to throw around then anyone else." Yes that's the risk if the AFL waited around in its own backyard and did not make difficult decisions other codes could eventually intrude on AFL turf. So the risk is higher to do nothing. Building the player pool is as important as the expansion of the aspirational teams. The Gold Coast is a no brainer for the AFL always has been. Western Sydney the real challenge but already witha Canberra connection and future Sydney derby on the horizon it has positives.
Mark Young
Roar Guru
Gday Red Oh I agree! It is great to be betting with someone else's money! My point was more that, they are betting with money that no other code in Aus has. They currently are making about twice as much as their compeitors, in some cases more. In the future, the other codes will have more money and the advantage the AFL has will be smaller, thus the fortunate situation now where they have a LOT more dosh to throw around then anyone else. I can see your perspective, there is a big risk in not expanding. That is not to say that the expansion is not without some pretty enormous risks as well. There are going to be interesting times ahead.
The Phantom
Guest
Is that the MIA with 6 rugby league clubs, 2 rugby union clubs and at least 7 soccer clubs and 2 Rules clubs?????
Redb
Roar Guru
It's not a bad bet when someone else is funding it (TV networks). The AFL is a professional organisation, the money for expansion already funded or else the decision would not have been made. As the AFL Commission has already said, there is greater risk in not expanding.
Republican
Guest
ps I think in reality Union in both Perth and Melbourne are unlikely to grow dramatically beyond the established ex pat support that was always an important criteria to placing teams in these cities in the first place, especially that of the Kiwi diaspora. I have family in both these Aust Footy capitals and none of them have been at all tempted to take a cursory look at Union and they typify the profile of the codes supporter. Union however will continue to be sustained here, on the back of the ever increasing migration of NZ'ers to our fatal shores.