It’s been reported FIFA has instructed the FFA to reform its governance structure by 31 March 2017. In particular, FIFA wants membership of the FFA to embrace a wider section of stakeholders.
Currently, the FFA has just ten ‘members’, which means there are only ten votes at general meetings, and only ten votes for electing the FFA board.
There are nine votes for state members, with the federations of Queensland, Northern New South Wales, New South Wales, Australian Capital Territory, Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia, Western Australia, and Northern Territory each getting one vote. Then there’s one vote for the ten A-League clubs.
FIFA is not happy with this.
The governance structure required of FIFA Members is detailed in FIFA’s statutes, with Article 15 stating: “legislative bodies (in this case, FFA) must be constituted in accordance with the principles of representative democracy and taking into account the importance of gender equality in football.”
This issue is not new.
In September 2002, the Australian Minister for Sport, Senator Rod Kemp, called for a review into the governance and management structures of football in Australia.
In April 2003, the “Report of the Independent Soccer Review Committee: into the Structure, Governance and Management of Soccer in Australia” was delivered to Federal Parliament.
This report is commonly referred to as The Crawford Report, and it proposed a voting structure for the FFA with broad stakeholder representation. Sadly, the recommendation was ignored and, as a result, we now are faced with the urgent demand from FIFA to reform, or face sanctions.
In particular, the Crawford Report recommended a voting electorate that would have a minimum of one vote for each of the nine state and territory member federations of the FFA.
The Crawford Report also suggested:
- additional one vote for State Members with more than 50,000 registered players
- additional one vote for State Members with 200,000 registered players
- additional one vote for State Members with 400,000 registered players
- one vote for the national men’s football league
- one vote each for: coaches, futsal, referees, women and players.
It’s a shame the Crawford recommendations were not implemented from Day 1, since it suggested a reasonable voting structure.
Nevertheless, we now have the opportunity to start again. So, this discussion is focused on two key points:
Firstly, which stakeholder groups do you want to vote on issues impacting football in Australia?
Secondly, how would you weight the votes for the stakeholders?
Here is my new FFA structure.
Guiding principles
1. Include all major stakeholder groups in football
I’m aware I’ve omitted giving fans a vote, since the interests of fans are too diverse to be represented by any two individuals.
However, I can be convinced to include fans as a voting constituent if someone can create a viable way to have all fans vote for two representatives and a method to ensure all interests are represented – not just active fans.
2. Equal male and female representatives for every voting constituency, other than A-League and W-League
3. The two biggest voting constituents will be A-League clubs and PFA
4. No single group of constituents must have a majority vote, so single constituency agendas cannot be forced
Here’s your chance to paint your vision for football in Australia. Start with a blank sheet and create your utopian model for the new FFA.
Nemesis
Roar Guru
Excellent point, Post_hoc. That definitely slipped my mind. And, I think you're right, there should be no vote for NIX at FFA Congress.
Post_hoc
Guest
As always Nemesis well thought out, I would ask one question. This is for Football in Australia, should the A League numbers we actually 9? Should Wellington have a seat to represent australian football?
Midfielder
Guest
Marcel Very astute post ... the noises today are very similar to the Sydney revolution of 1955 and around the launch of the NSL... They both failed badly...
Mattq
Guest
It's cheaper to buy a season ticket, membership is different. That's my understanding anyway
Nemesis
Roar Guru
True. If the ALeague becomes a separate entity, independent of the FFA, then there may not be a need for the ALeague clubs to have any votes at the FFA Congress. In relation to local associations, I don't know about other State Federations, but in Victoria, the Members are "two Zone Representative from each Zone, and the chair of each Standing Committee" The Zone Representatives are listed here & they cover all regions of Victoria (suburban & regional) http://www.footballfedvic.com.au/zone-representatives/ The Standing Committees are: refs, coaches, women, Futsal, juniors, men's
Swanny
Guest
Don't give up north Melb buddy our time is coming soon
Jeff Williamson
Roar Pro
I understand the revenue issue. The relevance of that may change if the A-league administration separates from FFA. The state federations do not necessarily represent the views of the local associations. In England, local associations are given a vote, as are different tiers, including EPL. Not a model I would wish to copy, but an example of more direct input from the grassroots.
Mark
Guest
mattq, my example is relevant. I'm making the point that people who buy a jersey and attend a couple of games don't make the same contribution as paid up members. A paid up club member will always make a greater financial contribution to football than a non-member. As I've outlined above, while a Foxtel subscriber may pay more than a club member, only a very small proportion of that subscription ends up as money in the coffers of the FFA or the A-League clubs. Money spent on jerseys goes mostly to the apparel company and the retailer. In relation to Steve's point about attending games, if you are going to attend a majority of matches it is cheaper to buy a membership, so I don't believe for a second that there are all these non-member fans out there attending nearly every one of their club's home matches.
marcel
Guest
Thanks for an interesting article Fuss. Im happy to admit that this is an area outside of my field...but in similar discussions in the past I would normally state my preference for "Enlightened Dictatorships" over Democracy. It can be useful to get the various "stakeholders" involved so that they properly understand the nuances of any decision making process......but coming from a creative background Ive generally experienced committees as almost certain guarantees of mediocrity and inefficiency....Nothing visionary ever comes from a committee...Committees are, by their design, mechanisms to deliver compromise. .. ..again this is not my area...but im busy trying to figure out what would stop matters from being hijacked by bloc voting of special interest alliances. The A-league generates the overwhelming majority of revenue..but could easily be at the mercy of all the other groups pursuing their own agenda...I personally dont trust the PFA to make sound, long term judgements.....Does the A-League not derserve greater representation to protect itself. Do the Socceroos deserve a seat at the table? Anyway, Cheers...lots to think about here.
Nemesis
Roar Guru
It's no longer a Thought Bubble, or Whiteboard Strategy. Could this be the Birth of a National 2nd Division for Football in Australia? https://goo.gl/photos/b3th9GSRfs3yuw1K8
Nemesis
Roar Guru
Jeff, With my model, the grassroots level holds 42% of the votes. The combined ALeague/WLeague only have 26% of the votes. It needs to be mentioned that, according to estimates reported in the media, ALeague/WLeague (mainly ALeague) currently provides 75% of the FFA's annual revenue.
Jeff Williamson
Roar Pro
A-league clubs should only have a small percentage of the votes. We need to remember that the FFA is our national association. It is responsible for football at all levels - not just the A-league. Therefore, each tier of football should be represented. Especially the local associations where we all started playing football.
Nemesis
Roar Guru
@Waz I definitely like the idea of fans forming a Union or Association. And I definitely like the idea of this Association being used to lobby politicians. Just don't think it's required at the FFA Congress level. If the ALeague were to become independent, then maybe fans could have input at that level. It's obvious to me that fans within a club have very different expectations and value things differently. Then, when we look across clubs - fans of Melbourne Victory will have different expectations to fans of CCM who will have different expectations to fans of NIX, etc. etc. Further, fans of NPL or grassroots have different expectations to fans of ALeague. Fans who attend every away matches different expectation to fans who only attend home matches & different expectations to fans who only watch on TV.
Waz
Guest
Nemesis, I don't think they do. I've had several discussions in the last 6 months with the UK Federation (for the stuff Roar supporters are doing) and they work from the outside in. They do however influence parliament and are consulted on football related matters so things have improved. So there is no model to follow as far as I am aware and, while I like your thinking here, I see no reason why Australia shouldn't be the first to do this. And to be fair to the ffa, FIFA do not recognise fans as stakeholders in the game which imo is a mistake.
Mark
Guest
"AFL (and to a lesser extent NRL) memberships have been part of a family’s annual budget for years" There is a reason why the AFL is in very good financial health, while football and, to a lesser extent, NRL are struggling. AFL fans, particularly those in Melbourne, put their money where their mouth is to support their clubs. I strongly suspect Victory benefits from that culture and growing up in that culture has certainly influenced my views on this matter. Football fans, and similarly NRL fans, on the other hand, have an attitude of entitlement, giving little or nothing to their clubs but expecting them to bend over backwards to appease them in return. I just saw your most recent comment, and I do agree we have got off topic.
Nemesis
Roar Guru
@mattq We obviously won't agree on this. But, suffice to say... Apart from the exception I've mentioned below, EVERY single football club in Australia - at all levels since football was 1st played in this country - would have been built & administered by Club Members. The only exceptions to this are the 9 A-League clubs.
mattq
Guest
but Mark we're not talking about financial contributions to individual clubs, we're talking about whether all fans (members/non-members) should be represented by a body with voting rights at FFA. I think you've strayed off topic a bit.
mattq
Guest
@Mark, we're not talking about club voting rights. We're debating which Australian football fan's contribution is worth more, a paid up club member or a non-club member who financially contributes via other means (i.e. season ticket, match day ticket, fox subscription etc.).
Mark
Guest
mattq, regardless of what your actual motivations for having a subscription are. Foxtel doesn't take your money and give it all to the FFA just because your primary motivation for getting a subscription is the A-League. If we consider that the FFA dilutes the money it gets from Foxtel further by giving a only proportion of it to the A-League, of which only a proportion of that goes to your favourite club, your financial contribution to your favourite club becomes minuscule. On the other hand, 100% of the money I pay for my membership goes directly to my favourite club. What they choose to do with it, even if it is paying a Chinese sweatshop to make keyrings, is their business, other than to say that as a Victory fan, I'm very happy with the way the club is run and how my money is being spent.
mattq
Guest
@ Nem - sorry I don't see a direct correlation in mono-ethnic member based clubs and broadbased professional sporting franchises. There's no two ways about it, club memberships is a relatively new phenomenon for the broadbased Australian football public. AFL (and to a lesser extent NRL) memberships have been part of a family's annual budget for years.