Although always hot topics, expansion and promotion/relegation have officially been put on the back burner by FFA.
Plans to consolidate have been placed high on the A-League’s agenda.
As Football Federation Australia chief executive Davis Gallop knows all too well, his objective is to oversee and provide sustainability while bringing commercial viability to each of the A-League’s 10 teams.
Unlike the Independent Commission (IC) that was brought into rugby league towards the end of Gallop’s tenure, he does not believe that a “go-it-alone commission” with the clubs taking charge of the A-League is the way to go.
Gallop ultimately favours a more centralised model with input from all interested parties (club owners, sponsors, investors, players), which ultimately will seek to accomplish the same sort of principles; improving the game while moving forward to achieve set targets and goals.
“It’s not affordable to consider that kind of structure. The competitive environment that we operate in lends itself to a business model where all the components of the game live together in a centralised structure,” Gallop said talking to the Sydney Morning Herald.
“At the same time we need to be continuing to provide meaningful opportunities for the A-League clubs, their owners and investors to be part of the game’s decision making process.
“The continued prosperity of the A-League as it heads towards its 10th season requires focus. We are continuing to work with the clubs and the club owners to make sure their investment is well protected.
“We have to get resolution on a few issues around the length of licences; that’s something we are keen to get involved to everyone’s satisfaction – how we come up with a structure that protects their investment and gives them security for the future while still having appropriate safeguards as the governing body of the game.”
As mentioned before, Gallop is not keen on expansion in the short term, though he does not rule out the prospect of bringing in more teams once the current television rights expire.
Promotion/relegation has always been a long term prospect/goal for Australian football to strive for, but Gallop has once again reaffirmed his commitment to consolidating a 10-team competition.
“We need to consolidate the 10-team competition that we have got and make sure we continue to provide a close and compelling competition to the broadcasters,” he said.
“Promotion and relegation has got challenges when you are dealing with a country the size of Australia, where we need teams in specific geographic locations. It’s not something we are considering with much focus at the moment.”
Having followed rugby league for some time, I became accustomed to Gallop’s well thought out and reasonable offerings.
I’m yet to question the man, and I shall keep it that way, but I was surprised as to the amount of revenue he seeks once the current television deal finishes.
Football Federation Australia aims to more than double its $40 million a year in TV revenues.
When the next broadcast deal is struck, the potential to lift rights fees as high as $100 million a year is the target!
Given not even a year has passed with free-to-air ratings to warrant such an amount, Gallop feels it is important to aim high.
“The A-League is the financial backbone of the business in terms of the new television deal, and the goal is of making sure that the next TV deal is a substantial increase in rights fees from the current one,” Gallop said.
“It’s difficult to pin down what the value will be, but we need to be aiming high, and I think it’s realistic to aim for a very hefty increase. It’s $40 million a year at the moment . . . a doubling would be the least we would expect.”
For some, and this may be the most deterring prospect, the need for increased TV revenues could mean the likelihood of seeing our product go to the likes of Channels 7, 9 or 10, but it’s a thought we may have to get used to if football is continue moving into the future.
Gallop still knows that traditional broadcast media remain the best revenue option.
“Digital growth has obviously been an important part of the sport’s progress. But ultimately both pay television and free-to-air is the goose that lays the golden egg for sport still, and football needs to be focused on that.”
This is all evidence to the presumption that David Gallop is a man on a mission.
The next logical step now is to ensure strong relationships continue to be forged as club owners and all parties work towards the agenda of consolidation.
AZ_RBB
Guest
Ok CCM first. if anything their players underpaid. in the last off season half their team went overseas and are now earning at least double what they were at CCM. several more rejected lucrative offers from Europe and elsewhere. Moving CCM is not an option. an enormous amount of money has been invested in that area and that club. it is now very stable and the most successful in the league's history. It also keeps the NRL on its toes in that area. Glory......the FFA should help out the club a little because of the amount they probably spend on travel. But with their strong NSL history relocating or even changing anything about them is not an option. Perth has a very strong football culture but the FFA has struggled to tap into it. The club has a ton of management issues that need to be sorted. Nx.....wouldn't be surprised if they are moved to Auckland. NZ making the World Cup again might help. I'll be cheering for them. They have some incredible talent.
Arto
Guest
@ brendan: Whilst I agree with your point that Fussball ist unser leben has started typing before researching enough and that there is a fair amount of Rugby League competitions that could be broadcast, with the exception of SoO, the All-Stars, and the Test matches most of those comps won´t really interest the mainstream so their ability to attract boradcasting revenue is limited to say the least (IMO, I think they´re actualy more of a bargaining chip for Fox Sports & Channel Nine to negotiate their price lower).
Punter
Guest
Great numbers Mid, who would've thought 100million 10 years ago, a pipe dream. Football is definitely on the way up.
Steve
Guest
Midfielder - I'm a massive fan of football, and I sincerely hope it becomes the dominant sport in the country, including attracting much larger rights fees and greater attendances (and results!). However, many things go into valuing broadcasting rights, particularly from a Free-TV perspective. A good majority of the value comes from selling advertising space. Two things increase the value from a networks perspective, the amount of advertising they can sell and the cost. The cost relates to the number (and type) of viewers. Across the world, advertising rates on old media (i.e. TV and print) have not been growing. in fact they have been falling as users head towards different platforms. So even factoring in a doubling of the audience, there is nothing to say that advertising rates will similarly double. Secondly, football is such a great sport to watch (and play) for many reasons, but one of the main reasons it is great to watch on TV is because there are no annoying advertisements during play. Compare that to the American sports with frequent timeouts, or the Australia sports like AFL and League where anytime a goal is scored it accepted that the broadcaster can pan to a commercial. Similarly for the cricket at tennis, with the game having natural change of ends. This means that football will never be able to attract greater advertising dollars per viewer than other, because the total time spent advertising during football is simply much less. Increasing the amount of advertising will be detrimental to the viewing experience. I know there are pre and post match segments but these attract lower audiences and therefore lower advertising rates. This is also partly why football is so commonly shown on PayTV networks around the world. Sure Pay-TV penetration rates are higher, but the business case for a FTA to spend extraordinary sums on football rights is not particularly strong. Football is often the backbone of many Pay-TV subscriptions (in Australia this is NRL and more recently AFL). This is where things like broadcast sponsorship can become important, but again could an increase in broadcast sponsorship to compensate for the lack of advertising minutes may be detrimental to the viewing experience. I think it's great that Gallop and the FFA are aiming high, but they also need to be realistic. Selling the A-League and the Socceroos rights separately may be one solution to entice the major FTA networks to broadcast more football. Bundling means that either the FTA networks won't get involved yet, therefore reducing the value of each product. Perhaps PPV or online season passes are the future as our communications infrastructure joins the 21st century.
Johan
Guest
Lower the costs for mariners, Phoenix and glory for a start. Their players, like most A league players, are played far more than they are worth and much more than MLS players or players of similar quality in Europe. The other alternative is to relocate these teams with central coast moving to Wollongong the easiest. Not enough people in any concentrated area in central coast and Newcastle has a team anyway which isn't that far. Phoenix never draw a decent crowd which is strange cos I thought the whole point of moving from Auckland to Wellington was to improve attendances.
Australian Rules
Guest
To quote Homer Simpson: "“Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything. 14% of people know that.”" Midf, the exercise of breaking down each broadcast deal into an "hourly rates" comparison is a pointless one. It's the *content* and *terms* of the contract that imbues its truel "value" in the market. Eg - When the NRL inked its new Broadcast deal, the Daily Telegraph quickly proclaimed it was superior to the AFL deal, using the "hourly rates" argument, as you just have. In reality, most NRL fans will tell you the new deal is a shocker, as it contains just 1 live game on FTA per week and abysmal coverage into "non-heartland" states. By contrast, all NSW and QLD AFL games are shown live into those states via the secondary FTA channel, so there's more AFL games on telly in NSW & QLD than there is NRL games...which is crazy really. In order to ink those terms, the AFL had to accept a lot less money, so direct dollar-for-dollar comparisons rarely tell the full story. All that said, the FFA should rightly look forward to a bumper increase on the value of its rights. The decision in how to balance live coverage on FTA suitors will be an interesting one.
Mike
Roar Guru
I thought it was interesting in this article that Gallop says "Certainly the experience in Australian sport generally is that you need to be looking at areas with millions of people not hundreds of thousands if you're going to really have a viable crack at it." http://www.smh.com.au/sport/soccer/big-euro-club-to-play-aleague-all-stars-in-2014-20131112-2xcy4.html Expansion has been cast aside for the time being, and rightfully so, but if they really are going to be looking at cities in the 'millions', it only leaves Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane, and possibly Perth and Adelaide. Or does this mean that maybe the FFA will really consider looking at neighbouring countries like Singapore? Anything can happen between now and 2017, but this sentence really caught my eye.
Mike
Roar Guru
Maybe one day in future. The AFC apparently don't like that the two bodies are the same here, and it costs us ACL points. But if anything I'd be looking into this last. Once the A-League is maxed out with teams, and the NPL and FFA Cup are going strong, then maybe the FFA can look into a split. They've done a good job of reinventing football over the last decade, so maybe over the next decade or the one after.
brendan
Guest
@Striker Your witty and well spelt retort has left me with nothing to say. I salute you.
Ben of Phnom Penh
Roar Guru
This is a football forum, no? There are a multitude of threads discussing the same things ad naseum across at the league forum if you four wish to discuss such matters. Other people will even join in.
striker
Guest
Brendon your right 5000 is big for the world cup hehehe what a joke you and you world cup is.
Midfielder
Guest
Tis interesting to look sometimes at the raw numbers and then look at what they say.. Just as an aside I remember posting this in an article some time ago bit have lost the original link... The annual AFL media deals [AFL folk to confirm the figures please]... 17 million ... then 40 million ... then 100 million ... then 176 million ... then 223 million ... So football ... 17 million ... 40 million ... 100 million... Anyway back to a little analysis .... both the AFl & Football deals will be done about the same time ... assume the AFL stick with the current model, however they are looking very likely to go the NFL model and produce a lot of their own... but for arguments sake lets assume they stay on FTA and Pay... assume the AFL deal will go to 285 million or 15.8 per team say 300 million or 16.67 per team... The A-League will get 100 million for 10 teams... or 10 million per team... somewhere between 63% & 60.5 % of the AFL deal... also football gets about 10 million per year from the AFC .. and if added to the 100 million would be 11 million per A-League team or 69.7% & 66% .. In 12 years that would be some achievement ... considering things like media coverage / history / ... even more if you allocate it on a broadcast scale... Football 135 matches @ 2Hours each is 270 Hours ... AFL 9 teams * 22 rounds say 200 3 hour games or 600 hours... Essentially 270 hours of A-League + Socceroo matches 110 million ... against 600 hours of AFL for 285 million... Hourly rate Football $ 407 K per hour ... AFL 475 K per hour ...
brendan
Guest
Yes, clearly this is the work of the communist party, there is no other reason that already highly paid athletes would want to assist developing nations grow the sport they love. Maybe we should start charging kids who play league from these countries $250 a head to supplement the professional players wages....
AZ_RBB
Guest
@brendan give up. RLWC has no hope until it's taken to a homophobic racist country or the middle of the desert with oil money.
Fussball ist unser leben
Roar Guru
"Personally I am glad the players aren’t payed and the money can be re-invested into the countries where the game is still developing, ala USA, Cook Islands, Samoa etc." BRAVO Comrade ... Down with all capitalist incentives & attempts to sully the great game of RL ... The workers united will never be defeated, etc. etc. ??
brendan
Guest
Also, the money the Australian players receive comes from the ARL, not the RLIF.
brendan
Guest
And therein lies the difference between playing for the love of the game and playing for money. Personally I am glad the players aren't payed and the money can be re-invested into the countries where the game is still developing, ala USA, Cook Islands, Samoa etc.
Fussball ist unser leben
Roar Guru
"Teams like the USA and Cook Islands are not paying their players. Italian players get a food allowance." My mistake for assuming the RLIF provides significant money (from those massive TV rights & ticket sales we're hearing about) to the 14 competitng nations? I guess I was wrong. For the Football WC, every one of the 32 nations that qualifies for WC2014 will receive at least $10 million.
brendan
Guest
@ Striker Correct, it was a massive success. The Largest Rugby League crowd ever to a game in Ireland. You will also find that places like Limerick bid to have games played there. I am unsure of the breakdown of the tournaments profit, not being privy to their books. I can only go off what is released by the RLIF. The 45,000 at the opener or the 75,000 that will be at Old Trafford could have something to do with it though. As could the multiple sell outs that have occurred thus far.
striker
Guest
Brendan how there making 30-50 million when Australia last game attendance aginst Ireland was 5021 gee what a massive success makes Melbourne Hearts average of 8000 big in comparison hehehe.