FFA Cup hiccups will take time to cure

News that Football Federation Australia has moved to ban all clubs from streaming their fixtures in the FFA Cup round of 16 has been met with widespread disdain.

Coupled with the governing body’s decision to move some NPL clubs’ home games to alternate venues due to lighting issues, and Twitter, as it is does, has blown up.

Perspective is necessary in both cases, and some have been too quick to vilify FFA and Fox Sports, who own broadcast rights for the national cup competition.

Let’s take a look at the facts first.

FFA announced on Wednesday that they would ban live streams, to ensure Fox Sports had exclusivity in broadcasting the cup. The major sore point among fans is that Fox are only broadcasting two of the eight round of 16 games live in September.

Crossovers to the remaining games, and goal updates will still be included, though.

The live streams were a huge success in the round of 32, giving great exposure to semi-professional clubs. But Fox have every right to put an end to the live streams as they aim to get people watching their own coverage, for footage that they paid for.

What is a shame is that the pay television network is only required to broadcast a minimum of 10 matches during the entire competition, representing poor negotiation from FFA. That includes the final, two semi-finals and four quarter-finals, meaning that the one televised game in the round of 32, and the two in the round of 16, meets that quota.

Fox can be excused for not going past its minimum quota, they are still trying to grasp how big viewership figures are during the early stages. How the round of 16 rates could well be clutch in convincing them the interest is there to up their coverage next season. They deserve to accumulate data as best they can to determine their involvement in future years, and therefore banning live streams is an appropriate action.

And for those giving stick to Fox, turn your memories back to the coverage of the round of 32. Pretty damn impressive, no? From all reports it was brilliant, with the live crosses and goal updates.

They’ve done a good job so far, and they’ll do even better one next year after they’ve collected viewership data. They paid the money for the rights, and they are helping keep the competition afloat. For that they deserve some credit.

FFA are also right to protect their financial agreements with Foxtel. But it’s clear they made a mistake in giving Fox a 10-game minimum quota. It’s hardly conducive to building publicity for the competition.

How much is FFA getting for the broadcast rights? Is the money worth it compared to the publicity available through live streaming? One can bet the fee is enough for FFA to want to protect further income. But they must negotiate a better deal for next season’s competition and pressure Fox to broadcast more games.

Whereas the last television deal was a step in the right direction, by giving Friday night games to public broadcaster SBS, the decision to only enforce 10 FFA Cup games on Fox was a step backward.

The uproar over lighting issues, which has stripped some clubs of playing in their home ground, has similarly been a bit hysterical. Some quarters have even suggested FFA are purposefully robbing NPL clubs of revenue and publicity.

While I wrote on Monday about FFA’s apparent disdain for old soccer, there is no conspiracy here. The rules were already existent, just poorly communicated. FFA is at fault for not ensuring clubs and fans were on the same wavelength about the lighting requirements. To suggest there is an agenda is ludicrous.

Olympic FC’s situation has caused the most angst, as their home game at Goodwin Park against Melbourne Knights was given the green light for the round of 32. However, as they are now playing Central Coast Mariners in the round of 16, there are different lighting requirements.

Is it unfair that A-League and semi-professional clubs are held to different standard in regards to light levels? Maybe. But that’s how football works all around the world; different standards apply to different levels of competition.

The higher you move up the echelons of football, the more stringent the measures. If the lighting isn’t good enough, the lighting isn’t good enough.

But the fact that some clubs are confused about the rulings indicate that FFA has again failed at consulting and communicating the requirements for matches in the FFA Cup.

Is it the clubs’ fault for not reading the fine print, or should FFA have been more proactive in ensuring all measures were explained? Either way, there were no sinister motives from the governing body, and they are issues that can be rectified for next year’s competition.

The easiest, and best, long-term solution is to hold the FFA Cup on designated weekends. With the 2015 Asian Cup limiting fixture options for the new competition this year, mid-week night games were necessary. But without those limitations next year, there seems no reason why FFA can’t schedule free weekends around the A-League so all matches are played in daylight.

If that’s not a possibility in the early years of the competition, then FFA should work out a way to assist cash-strapped clubs financially, in cases where they have to fork out to hire appropriate grounds.

It’s not an ideal situation this year, with smaller clubs missing out on home advantage and losing exposure and revenue possibilities. They are right to make some noise about it, if only to put pressure on FFA to work towards a solution.

But fans have to look at the bigger picture.

This year was the competition’s inaugural year, a few hiccups were inevitable. FFA could have dealt with the hiccups better with more communication and PR work, but it’s happened.

What is important is that we learn from these issues, eradicate the confusion, and get all stakeholders on the same wavelength.

Fans were probably spoiled by the fact that the round of 32 was streamed live. If FFA and Fox hadn’t allowed it in the first place, there wouldn’t be as much of an uproar. Their generosity, so to speak, has backfired.

As for the lighting, it could have been handled better and FFA could have offered financial assistance.

But they’re learning as they go. This is new ground for everyone, and it will take time before it’s perfect.

Perspective is needed. This is a new competition, and mistakes will be made. In fact, they have been made. But let’s all rejoice in the fact that we have the FFA Cup, and it’s bloody fantastic. Some time ago such a competition was a fanciful dream.

Follow Janek on Twitter @JanekSpeight