Football Federation Australia have responded to the Professional Footballer’s Association’s comments that the national body had withdrawn its recognition of the players association.
FFA CEO David Gallop has released a statement saying that they remain committed to reaching an understanding with the players, and they would continue to recognise the association.
He also said the FFA would continue to negotiate in good faith with the body.
The statement from Gallop reads as follows.
“FFA is shocked by the inaccuracies in the PFA’s media comments of yesterday and today,” said FFA CEO David Gallop.
“FFA continues to be committed to ensuring an appropriate MOU (memorandum of understanding) is agreed between FFA and the PFA, as part of a CBA, and any assertion that FFA intended to move forward without a CBA or MOU is wrong.
“FFA will continue to recognise the PFA and the role it plays and was preparing for an agreed face-to-face meeting with the PFA regarding the CBA this morning, which was cancelled by the PFA after the scheduled start time.
“FFA’s stance throughout the CBA negotiations has not wavered from its desire to acknowledge the important role of the players in the game’s growth by aligning current and future salary increases to the current economic landscape and sustainable growth of the game at all levels. The deal offered to the PFA, if accepted, would deliver the best ever deal for Australian professional footballers across the A-League, Socceroos and Matildas. This comes at a time when A-League clubs face economic challenges and are looking at investing in facilities and academy systems for the long term future that will see sustainability for decades to come.
“The fact remains that the current MOU expires this week. After eight years, the details of some key aspects are now outdated due to agreed changes over time and need to be altered to reflect the current landscape, which the FFA is committed to resolving.
“The changes to the Player Contract Regulations for the upcoming season were tabled, negotiated and implemented in good faith in line with the obligations under the current MOU and communicated to the PFA at the same time as the Hyundai A-League clubs, which have been waiting for these regulations to properly plan their squads for the up-coming season.
“We totally reject the PFA’s claims regarding the nature of the negotiations, which from a FFA point of view have always been conducted in good faith and with a desire to reach agreement.”
Before the response from the FFA, it was said that strike action could be on the cards for the A-League.
The Professional Footballers Australia described the move as an “unprecedented step”, in which the FFA informed the union it has terminated the memorandum of understanding with the PFA that has underpinned the game’s relations with players since 2007.
Set to expire on Friday, the PFA said memorandum will not be rolled over while negotiations over a new collective bargaining agreement continue, taking away the last remaining legal protection for Australia’s professional footballers.
PFA chief executive Adam Vivian said the move was “damaging” to the game, and hinted players could take industrial action in response.
“The PFA has a long track record of supporting and building the game. It is clear that FFA’s CBA proposals and its decision to withdraw recognition of the PFA are very damaging to both,” Vivian said in a statement.
“FFA has left the PFA and the players with no option but to take the necessary steps to secure the rights and wellbeing of Socceroos, Matildas and A-League players under Australian industrial law.”
Vivian informed players of the developments at Sunday’s general meeting, where the 177 players in attendance voted to reject FFA’s latest CBA proposal.
The FFA and PFA are still at an impasse over a variety of issues, including a proposed A-League salary cap freeze which the union has dismissed out of hand.
However, FFA announced on Tuesday a range of sweeping changes to the salary cap and player roster framework, which Vivian said completely blindsided the union.
“Yesterday’s media announcement by FFA about changes to the A-League Player Contract Regulations was made without the knowledge of the PFA and introduces overdue reforms to the cap tabled by the PFA as early as 2013 to promote greater development and stability in the league,” he said.
“However, the announcement unilaterally imposes the salary cap freeze rejected by the players in the CBA negotiations which will largely undermine the reforms and place even greater pressure on the A-League’s core player group.”
With Vince Rugari – AAP
Pauly
Guest
It's worth remembering that while we are grappling with the merits of equalisation, we aren't the only ones.
Brendo
Guest
tbh The FFA are trying to have a foot in both camps. The "Set $$ Cap" is a equalization cap. Every club pays the same! But because this style of cap has to be set at the lower end (or you will send your poorer clubs broke very quickly) they they introduce the idea of the marquee to allow clubs that can afford it to go our and get better players. Yes it breaks the idea of what a Set $$$ cap is trying to achieve but in a limited way (as I said they are trying to have their cake and eat it too).
Steve
Guest
"This type of cap would would be better at Financial Control but isn’t a equalization style cap." Yep. With two marquee exceptions anyway, there is already room to ensure that the cap is not so much an equalization measure anyway. i.e clubs that can afford it can get two marquees that can demonstrably increase the quality of the squad, while those that cannot afford it will not be able to take advantage of marquee exceptions. So, what exactly is the point of the cap again if not for financial control?
Brendo
Guest
Both sides using media to spin the story their way. PFA conveniently ignoring that the new initiatives effectively increase cap by 4.3 - 5% if you use Total Player Payments as the measure rather than just the Cap. Also claiming they were blindsided by the new changes, half these have been in the press for over a week and the rest would have been tabled at discussions. FFA making out the termination of the MOU was a no big deal. There was no real need for FFA to do this, absolutely a negotiating tactic by them that was unnecessary and inflammatory. The thing is the big sticking point seems to be that PFA want a increase in the Cap before the next TV deal and they in principle want to lock the TPP to 30% of total league wages. In principle I agree with them (putting aside whether the 30% is a fair figure or whether say 28% would make more sense). It makes a lot of sense and even the FFA agreed to would make a lot of sense but they have now backed away from it. But here is the thing, I suspect the issues is not the 30% but how you arrive at a valuation of league revenue. If I do a quick calc, I come up with a figure that the total TPP players are getting is about 30-33% of league rev now Rev Crowd Income (Membrships & Ticket Sales) $40M Media Rights (50% of total package) $20M Sponsors (Club) $25M Merc (Guess) $10M FFA AL Sponsors $5M Total $100M which aligns reasonably to this article http://www.smh.com.au/data-point/afl-leaves-other-codes-in-the-dust-20130326-2grkp.html Now the players TPP Cap $25.5 Marquee (7 x 2 x $400) $5.5 Other (Loyalty, Homegrown etc) $2.5 Other (Transition, Support) $0.5 Total $34 33% Now I have seen PFA use the figure of $150M for total revenue but it buggers me where they are getting that from and I suspect where the contention will be coming from because that means the TPP is short by 12 Million and to fill the gap the cap would need to lift by about $1M to $3.55M per club. The other reason the FFA may have backed away from this is using Total League Revenue presents a issue for the poorer club. The current system where everyclub pays the same wage bill means the poor club's wage bill is a lot higher in terms of percentage of revenue than a richer club and will send them to the wall a lot quicker. Eventually to main the staus quo the league need to pay the poorer clubs extra so that can compete (ie what happen in the AFL). This type of cap system is good for equalisation but no financial stability. If the league ever did agree to a set percentage of revenue being allocated to TPP then I would suspect that would be the end of the Cap as we know it today and the logical replacement would be a cap connected to a percentage of club revenue (ie Everybody can spend 30% of total club revenue from last season) This type of cap would would be better at Financial Control but isn't a equalization style cap.
Mister Football
Roar Guru
Tom It won't happen overnight, but it will happen...
aladdin sane
Guest
couldn't have nailed that any more.
Tom
Guest
"The League gets their payoff to cover it at the next TV deal." Ahhhhh just relaaxxxxx everybody!! Chill out..........Be patient!................................. Football's big payoff for all the years of sacrifice will be coming in the NEXXXTT tv deal. Just like 'tomorrow' Football's 'big payoff' will never arrive! The FFA leadership have treated all the game's stakeholders as gullible fools.
Tom
Guest
"Well the USA = biggest, best, bestest, closely followed by Melbourne!!!!! Still remember this American who told the best thing he saw in Europe was a McDonald’s in the Champs Elysees. The home of food, with it’s most famous street." Sorry for changing the subject Punter but I have a little trivia question to ask you and it is. Which of the following is the only country on Earth to have used Atomic, Nuclear, Biological, Chemical and Conventional weapons against civilian populations? a. USA b. a c. a & b d. All of the above And Australia looks to model itself on that country.............god help us!
The artist formerly known as Punter
Guest
Steve & my answer to you is that all sports talk it up, it's their job to talk it up. The AFL has some of the best crowd attendances & most passionate fans in the world & care little that the game is not well known outside of Australia. The NRL thinks their game is the greatest game in the world & in the SOO, thinks it's the biggest rivalry in sport. I have followed football in this country for over 30 years now in Australia, prior to the A-League, I follow Australian players in Australia (only O/S teams), but never had a team to follow, now 10 years later, SFC is my No 1 team in any sport in any country, such is my passion for the A-League.
Fussball ist unser leben
Roar Guru
"being about $15m (applying your 2:1 ratio). $15m is tens of millions globally." So, this whole discussion boils down to: Is it reasonable or unreasonable to suggest the FFA may receive $15m/year for selling ALeague TV rights to overseas markets? Sounds reasonable to me. It sounds reasonable for an overseas broadcaster to pay around 200k for 210 hours of Aleague content. And this is multiplied by broadcasts into 70 countries. Not a gold mine, but every dollar helps.
Steve
Guest
The only small bit of bait I applied was to Midfielder with my tea leaf reading comment! I went fishing for some mackerel with bread crumbs and happened to reel in a Marlin :)
albatross
Roar Pro
my original comment did not mention his name at all. So do you put the name of a fish on the baited hooks?
Mister Football
Roar Guru
Did the A-League grand final rate higher than the Champions League final? That's impressive.
Dean
Guest
A lot of the franchises are in a very precarious position. Salary cap increases will benefit the already successful and be detrimental to those struggling clubs. How about a bonus payment directly to players at the end of the season based on table position. 20% for first, down to 10% for last with a formula of crowd attendances and TV ratings to determine the size of the bonus pool. It protects the clubs and would reward not only good performance, but also reward players for drawing eyeballs and bums on seats. The League gets their payoff to cover it at the next TV deal. It's a much too precarious situation for the A-League to be promising salary cap increases at this stage. It's not like we're talking about minimum wage here.
Steve
Guest
Hi Punter "I agree A-League is a tiny competition that would attract little world wide attention." I agree with the above - and that is not meant to belittle the league, as I know you too love the league. Perhaps Djite and the PFA need to be told the above, that the league runs on not much more than shoestring budget, owners losing money, and if the players aren't happy they can go overseas. But when the FFA say the sorts of things that they do regarding big new TV rights in the future and large global audiences, my whole original point is the A-League players may very well have an over-inflated sense of themselves (inflamed by those comments) and believe they are deserving of more. Whether they are deserving or not depends on what you believe. can hardly blame them for trying, I don't imagine they do as we do and analyse broadcast figures for their veracity.
The artist formerly known as Punter
Guest
AZ, I bow to your greater knowledge on India, however, my gist is that yes, all sports do it, even cricket, AFL. NRL, NFL, so A-League is not the only one. I agree A-League is a tiny competition that would attract little world wide attention.
The artist formerly known as Punter
Guest
Sorry that was below the belt, I should've said USA & Melbourne equal top!!!!
Kaks
Roar Guru
You seemed to have missed my first line, Punter. Read it again closely. "I believed that for a number of reasons" In hindsight i jumped the gun. But if you want to say that i'm talking out of my .... then go ahead And you would be surprised how many people - who arent cricket fans - would stop to watch a Cricket game against your national neighbour who is seen as an 'enemy'. Plenty of people would watch for the spectacle instead of the love of the sport, happens all the time in major sporting events. How many people watched the Pacquaio Mayweather fight because they're die hard boxing fans? How many watched the FIFA world cup final because they're die hard football fans?
AZ_RBB
Guest
Usually hate entering these debates but hey why not got nothing better to do. The gist of Kaks' argument is his last sentence. "a 1 billion viewing figure for a Pakistan vs India world cup match is more realistic than a 300m figure for an A-League " In the sense that you can probably justify half of that cricket figure but as much as I love our ALeague, I'm not sure how I can justify anything more than 20-25M for it. Even then I feel like I'm pushing it. Now I've lived in India for nearly 2yrs and both my parents are Indian so I would like to think I have some knowledge in this area. It's been a while since I've been in the country during an Ind v Pak game but I can tell you the usually overcrowded streets become nearly deserted when India play much lower status games so I think it's very reasonable to say that 3-400M would have watched in India. Wouldn't be much more than 20-30M in Pakistan. With the shear number of migrants spread around the world you can comfortably add another 20-30M on top of that. Plus I'm sure general cricket fans would have been watching. I think 300M as a pessimistic and 500M as an optimistic is a reasonable estimate.
AR
Guest
Thankfully you're here to steer us back on track with topshelf gems like: "Well the USA = biggest, best, bestest, closely followed by Melbourne!!!!!"