The hot topic in Australian football this week is undoubtedly the Wellington Phoenix, and about whether they should stay or go.
David Gallop cited their lack of crowds, poor TV ratings and low membership as considerations in determining their place in the future of the A-League, but that only begs the question, just what is the future of the competition?
There is little doubt expansion will happen at some point, so then the first point becomes what will that expansion look like?
For me, the perfect league size is 16 teams. This has several benefits.
This equates to 30 games played on a straight home-and-away basis. The length of the season is increased from the current 27-game regular season, though not so much that it creates major scheduling issues.
Playing each team at home only once each season hopefully increases the motivation to attend each game.
This week, many have argued that a third Sydney team would dilute the appeal of the derby games, increasing the number to nine games, a point I agree with. Having a home-and-away competition would mean only six Sydney derbies, and playing the other Sydney teams only twice each would help to maintain the rarity value of each of those events.
Assuming 16 teams then is the ideal goal, where do the extra six teams come from?
Only five cities in Australia have a population above one million, after that there is the Gold Coast with 590,000, and Newcastle and Canberra with around 410,000 as per the ABS statistics of 2012. The rest have less than 300,000.
Given that Gallop has indicated a preference for new clubs to have a population base of millions, not thousands, there is obviously limited opportunity in Australia to field six more teams, and removing Wellington would only make that harder.
On the other hand, a nearby city of that size already exists with no A-League team, Auckland.
I realise that the Knights came and went in ignominy, but the league has learnt a lot since then about what is required to set up and run a sustainable club. It should be possible to once again field a team in that city.
What value would an Auckland versus Wellington derby give to both clubs and the league in general? Surely at a time when the FFA and media seem focused on derbies as promotional vehicles for the game, this is an obvious rivalry, currently untapped in our game.
There would be minimal extra travel for Australian clubs. They already travel to New Zealand three times every two years. With a home-and-away competition, this only increases to four every two.
There is little doubt that the metrics cited by Gallop reflect poorly on the Kiwi team, but given the turmoil at the Jets, the inability of the FFA to sell that club, the ongoing financial concerns at the Mariners, and the failure of the Roar to pay staff and creditors in recent months, it makes you wonder why the Phoenix are being edged out.
Could it be that the real reason is that continuing pressure from the AFC is finally starting to tell, and the FFA are using statistics as an excuse to save face?
The Phoenix have struggled financially in the past, and they may well do again in the future, but at the moment there are other clubs more deserving of having their licenses revoked than the Phoenix.
Without other reasons becoming evident, I believe removing the Nix would be a short-sighted policy that will reduce future opportunities for the A-League.
Save the Nix!
bobbym
Guest
The A league has become to predictable. It has now reached a tipping point and heading towards being boring. Perhaps it's here already with crowds and TV ratings down. Would have kept the Phoenix in for at least 6 years , put them on notice as to how they need to improve and gout and add more teams- Canberra , etc. Not adverse to a southern Sydney team. Only a vastly superior TV deal will allow better imports to be considered going forward, EG Pirlo or a Rooney within a couple of more seasons. FFA lost me when Franks son was appointed. If significant changes are not made I can see this versions of the A league dying out within 5 years - much the same way as the original version of the MLS.
Mister Football
Roar Guru
Waz You are spot on there. The Super Rugby example shows clearly that for local broadcasters, games between local sides far, far exceeds the value of all other games. They did change the comp to get more local "derbies" for that very reason. In the case of the Nix, it's only one side out of 10 (rather than two-thirds as was the case with SR), nevertheless, the exact same concept applies, and you are right to mention that. That very argument is precisely why people can forget about a future comp where there might be two ore even three NZ sides in it- commercially speaking, it is a road to nowhere. Also, you are spot on that it has been all but confirmed that we will stay as a ten team comp for the next TV deal, and that this discussion about a 3rd Sydney club is about extracting maximum value out of a ten team comp.
dinoweb
Roar Guru
Is football a sport first and business second or is it the other way around? I fully understand the necessity of having an economically viable league, and with Wellington coming from a catchment area of about 400k, they are always going to struggle to be competitive financially with the bigger centers, but so too do Newcastle and the Mariners. Should they both be cut adrift to make the league more economically viable? From a purely business point of view, I'd say that at least the Mariners do if not both. My suggestions is simply that the best future setup for the A-League is to have 16 teams. Those teams would need to come from the largest population centers available to make them as viable as possible. To get 16 teams in Australia would require having 4-5 teams each in Sydney and Melbourne, something I am dead against, or putting teams in places like Wollongong and Sunshine coast, both with populations of less than 300k. How is that better than having a team in Wellington with a population of 400k? In this region, Auckland and Wellington are two of the largest population bases available, and having them both would help to make each other more viable. But regardless of the future, the fact is Wellington has helped to sustain the league for the past eight years. My understanding is that every other club has been offered a long term extension to their existing license, no questions asked. The Phoenix have not. The FFA has negotiated a 10 team broadcast deal with Phoenix as part of the mix. I don't understand that logic that the Nix are costing the FFA anything. The Nix have been told to ask for a four year extension and to the best of my knowledge have been given no guarantee past that date, or had any benchmark criteria defined as to what they need to do to remain as part of the competition at the end of that time. Personally I find that morally unacceptable, and from a business point of view, arbitrarily treating one license holder different to every other only undermines the confidence of existing license holders in the value of their own licenses.
Waz
Guest
The one arguement NOT being given by those people in support of the Nix staying is an economic one. It's purely an emotional response.
Waz
Guest
It's not my arguement! It's Fox Sports argument! Argue with them, not me. Fox executives have been quoted on numerous occasions on this topic - the most recent was the Super Rugby TV negotiations where Fox were very specific in valuing content with Australian v Australian sides more than Australian v NZ/SA sides. This was such a sticking point that to get more money from Fox the competition was changed to a conference system. Fox and SBS are paying for the sport because they can sell advertising and subscribers in Australia - Nix's value is less than the 9 Australian clubs (that's a commercial fact) so if they are replaced by an Australian club side the economics would say the current TV rights would increase in value by 11% which on a $40m contract would be worth $4.4m and on Gallops wish list figure of $80m would be worth an extra $8.8m. They're the basic economies in play. What is surprising is we all expected expansion to 12 teams to come with the next TV contract but instead we are staying at 10 so the basic economics above suddenly become very important and make no mistake, after ten years the HAL is an unprofitable operation and if that continues it will not survive as at some point external financial support, or the goodwill of suppliers, or sponsors appetite, or maybe even fans passion will disappear and the house of cards will collapse. Eliminating Nix will not suddenly make everything better but as a business owner myself I know that getting to profitability means optimising all areas of your business, if there's one costing you a few million each year it would be folly to not change it. Nix's must stump up the money somehow (The NZ FA could put a few million in, the indignant NZ politicians could pressure Sky to put an extra zero on that paltry $100k TV contract etc) or accept Australia is better off without them.
Mister Football
Roar Guru
RBBA It has been reported a number of times that upon rejecting the Nix's application for a 10 year extension, the FFA invited the Nix to apply for a four year extension. That is slightly different to what you are trying to say here. Either way, if he FFA needs a contingency plan it is because they are effectively ushering the Nix to the exit door. It's not really a contingency plan, it's a plan to get rid of one club and replace it with another. Which is fine, but this idea expressed by Lowy that they need to be ready in case the Nix pulls out of the comp (because they are pushing the Nix out of the comp) borders on absurd.
Realfootball
Guest
Do you know how often you open a post with "Really?", Fussball. And follow it up with a second question that you think - in your cocoon of self delusion - will demolish the original post? It has reached the point where you have become an ongoing self parody. It must be so tiring to constantly fester and fulminate as you do. So much energy for so little consequence.
RBBAnonymous
Guest
Sorry Waz I dont buy that argument. In case you haven't noticed Fox sports negotiates the rights deal with the FFA and these rights are for 10 teams not 9 teams. In fact if you want me to turn the argument around it is in fact the Wellington Phoenix who bring additional money into the A-league, that is because Sky Sports also pays for the rights of a 10 team competition. At no stage do Wellington negotiate the rights with either pay tv provider, just like no other Australian team does, the rights are negotiated by the FFA.
Waz
Guest
It's an inescapable fact though that FoxSports/SBS are paying each of the nine Australian clubs $4.3m+ every season in the hope of selling advertising/subscribers - they do not pay the same for Nix who in return only generate $100k/year in TV rights in NZ. Whether we like Nix or not it is costing Australian football money. If it is as important to NZ football surely the local FFA could back it with $2.65m of funding?
RBBAnonymous
Guest
I think the FFA needs to have a contingency plan in place regardless just in case the Nix dont want to sign a four year extension. I think you are mistaken, the Wellington Phoenix have asked for a longer licence, the FFA is offering them four years. All they have to do is sign it.
Mister Football
Roar Guru
As the SMH says: "While ensuring that Wellington Phoenix's future remains in their hands and they can still apply for a four-year A-League licence, the governing body has spent up to a year researching potential new markets in the event ties with New Zealand are cut-off. " The Nix have merely been invited to apply for a four year license - it is yet to be given by the FFA.
RBBAnonymous
Guest
Its a probationary licence. Hence why the poster Pete4 said "Phoenix have fours to prove". Does that clear it up ?
Mister Football
Roar Guru
Unwittingly or otherwise, Frank has not been entirely accurate with what you are quoting there because as things stand, having rejected the Nix's application for a 10 year extension, the FFA has merely invited the Nix to apply for a further 4 years. There's a very important point that people need to keep in mind. Note - in the lead up to rejecting the 10 year extension, and having invited the Nix to apply for four more years, the FFA have actively sought out a 3rd Sydney option. Lowy says directly: “I explained to him that it was obvious that if Phoenix was to leave FFA would need to replace that team with another to maintain the 10-club A-League which we are required to do under our broadcast agreement. In other words, it would not be an extension of the A-League, but a continuation of the 10-club competition. " Lowy makes it sound as if the contingency plans only exist in case the Nix leave the league - but the FFA is effectively showing the Nix the door - that's not really a contingency plan!!
RBBAnonymous
Guest
But they are adding something. They are part of the competition much like CCM, Newcastle or Perth. All the teams have their strengths and weaknesses. I wouldn't say Wellington is the weakest team in the competition, far from it.
Bob
Guest
Let's hope they dont sign up as they're not adding anything commercial to the league which is struggling financially - we should all remember that the HAL has no divine right to survive
Bob
Guest
"expansion in New Zealand makes more sense" ...... apart from financially that is!!! It would be nice if the author got his head out of the clouds and explained how two NZ sides would be funded??
RBBAnonymous
Guest
Gyruss, Can you also understand that by saying NZF is pathetic and lazy that you are also putting the FFA firmly in the cross hairs. Why did we invite them into the A-league in the first place. I like the Nix, I hope they sign up for 4 more years.
Gyruss
Guest
This whole saga has shown one thing. NZF is pathetic, lazy and more than willing to ride the coat tails of the FFA and wealthy investors. Develop your own league New Zealand. Your football responsibility is not the concern of Australia. Andrew Durante's comments on the state of New Zealand football "It would destroy football in my opinion if the club was to go under," Why this should bother FFA is anyones guess. It clearly hasn't worried NZF before has it Not only should should a team from Auckland not be considered, but Wellington should be out
savic
Guest
Your forgetting that Perth glory and Adelaide united were two of the success stories at the tail end of the nsl so on their applying for licenses to the a-league were sure to get them. Not to mention SA being an extremely successful football state with a big history of successful clubs and producing players for the national team. To not include a side from Adelaide because they are not east enough would have been just silly. Not to mention the fact that the two closest capital cities in Australia distance wise are Adelaide and Melbourne.
pete4
Guest
Frank Lowy has come out this afternoon and said the Phoenix have four years to prove they're an asset and not a liability. So let's see how it plays out...