A-League clubs will try to persuade a visiting FIFA delegation to ban Football Federation Australia from participating in the congress review working group being set up to fix Australian football’s governance issues.
The clubs – FFA’s primary nemesis – have started their individual meeting with a three-man FIFA/AFC delegation with an agenda extending far beyond the congress issue that’s engulfed the domestic game for two years.
Without any FFA representatives in the room, the chairmen of the 10 clubs are set to tell the trio the organisation’s board has effectively disqualified itself from participation due to what they perceive as a lack of good governance.
Having backed off from threats to replace FFA chairman Steven Lowy and his board with a ‘normalisation committee’, FIFA is back in Sydney to force democratic reform of its congress, which elects the FFA board.
The biggest challenge for the world governing body, which failed to oversee consensus for reform last August, is finding a diplomatic resolution to the stalemate between bitterly opposed protagonists FFA and the clubs.
Two FIFA representatives – Nodar Akhalkatsi and Luca Nicola – and the Asian Football Confederation’s Ravi Kumar – are leading the talks to set up the composition and mandate of a ‘congress review working group’.
It’s understood the clubs, operating under umbrella body the Australian Professional Football Clubs Association, will push for the working review process to be complete by June 1, just before the World Cup starts.
They will also propose that the working group be comprised of three state member federations, two A-League clubs and one players’ union representative, with special interest groups also ideally involved in the process.
If they have their way FFA will have no involvement, though this is likely to be met with firm opposition by Lowy and his board, which is due to meet with the delegation late on Wednesday afternoon.
It’s believed the clubs will also lobby for other changes to FFA’s governance, including greater financial transparency and more independent arbitration processes.
That’s along with a re-negotiation of the legal framework currently binding clubs and players, such as the one obliging young A-League talent to report for Olyroos duty outside FIFA windows.
Earlier on Wednesday, the state federations attended their private meeting with FIFA, during which it’s understood there were a number of differing suggestions floated regarding the objective, composition, mandate and timeline of the working group.
On Tuesday the delegation met with Professional Footballers Australia, the Association of Australian Football Clubs, referees, coaches, women’s football and fans.
Nemesis
Guest
Just to be perfectly clear & to educate the posers from other sports, who think FFA (or the Lowy Family) will control the reform process... The FFA released this Media Statement, which unequivocally states who will control how the CRWG will be structured & operated. FIFA will now decide on the terms of reference for the Congress Review Working Group, including its composition, mandate and timelines. https://www.ffa.com.au/news/congress-review-working-group-talks-conclude-sydney
Grobbelaar
Roar Guru
None should feel left out. All of the very best comprise the FIFA governance committee passing judgement on Australian football governance, including illuminaries from North Korea. We are in safe hands.
tsuru
Roar Rookie
Hey! "African dictators do better". What about us Russian, South American, Middle Eastern, and American dictators? We feel left out.
marcel
Guest
You just don't understand how this works do you.
marcel
Guest
Aside from your overblown ego..what are your sources?.. The statutes VERY clearly state the opposite of your opinion...that the stakeholders hold no formal power.
Grobbelaar
Roar Guru
Because to date both father and son have had these same stakeholders in their back pocket.
Grobbelaar
Roar Guru
INterestingly, there are some 40 or so African FAs that currently meet FFA governance statutes, and there would be a few of those on the committee which is passing judgement on the FFA's on governance shortfalls.
Grobbelaar
Roar Guru
And your response is relevant because....
Waz
Guest
The FFA is not a stakeholder so it shouldn’t sit in these meetings. The FFA, Lowy included, are employed by the stakeholders and work for them. There are times when the boss wants to have a meeting without the staff around, this is one of them.
Waz
Guest
Your incomplete research on google eventually made it through. The FFA are not stakeholders, FIFA does not back administrators over stakeholders. FIFA does not “normalise” clubs, but FAs in various forms. FIFA is organised for the benefit of players and clubs and its democratic principles support that. F for Failure. Must try harder. Keep looking.
Waz
Guest
I worked in China for ten years. Women were considered equal to men and were equally represented in the workforce getting paid the same. In Australia women are still considered inferior to men, often get paid less than men for doing the same job, and some professions are off limits. One is “democratic” and historically discriminates against women. One is undemocratic and doesn’t. What is your point?
Waz
Guest
Nice but incomplete googling. FIFA does not consider the FFA a stakeholder or a SIG. FIFA organised itself for the benefit of players and their clubs. Administrators are there to serve players and their clubs. Not the other way around. This is contrary to AFL and NRL, this is not to say one is better but it’s just different. Something some in this country are struggling to get their heads around.
marcel
Guest
still awaiting moderation here...but the FIFA statutes don't say that at all Waz....in fact their definition of stakeholder is someone who is outside of the FIFA/Member Association relationship.
Realfootball
Guest
100% Mid.
Grobbelaar
Roar Guru
Well... The wording in the constitution is pretty vague (which might explain why so many non-liberal non-democratic nations manage to meet FIFA's governance requirements). In fact, the only clear-cut clarification provided by the FIFA statutes as to what is intended by "representative democracy" is to mention gender. This leads us to two further points: - how on Earth so many non-liberal non-democratic nations manage to meet gender equality requirements; and - the FFA exec is already organising a women's representative body in the background which will simply deliver votes back to the current FFA board, all in the name of representing women.
Midfielder
Guest
I can't for the life of me understand how FFA are allowed to sit and listen to its stakeholders meeting. FFA board members are elected by stakeholders. As elected members they should report to the stakeholders not the stakeholders report to them.
marcel
Guest
As to the headline...Is that even possible? Would it not effectively make the A-League a breakaway competition
marcel
Guest
Sorry Waz..this is the wrong forum to be making stuff up....FIFA Statutes say nothing of the sort.... The only thing vaguely consistent with your "VERY CLEAR" claim are small non binding courtesies..." 5.1 FIFA shall "promote" friendly relations: a) between and among member associations, confederations, clubs, officials and players; 11.1....Consequently, it is "recommended" that all member associations involve all relevant stakeholders in football in their own structure. FIFA Statutes specifically state that stake holders are subservient to Member Associations.. 20.1 Clubs, leagues or any other groups affiliated to a member association shall be subordinate to and recognised by that member association. FIFA administers the game through Member Associations ( i.e. FFA)...not stakeholders Member Associations have defined obligations as follows. 14.1 to manage their affairs independently and ensure that their own affairs are not influenced by any third parties 19.1 Each member association shall manage its affairs independently and without undue influence from third parties.
Perry Bridge
Guest
#Kangajets Collingwood actually had an operating profit, but after writing down the asset value of the Glasshouse and redevelopments at the 'Holden Centre', the statutory result for the FY was a loss. Their revenue was up $6.2 mill to $77.7 mill and membership of just under 76,000. As much as I hate them - I hate to respect that. Note that Collingwood received just shy of $11 million in AFL distributions. Gold Coast were the top of the table with $24.67 mill in distributions. The bottom was West Coast with $10.8 million. This isn't of itself 'propping up'. The starting point is the distribution from centralised revenue (broadcasting) to all clubs to effectively cover the total player payments and the like. Then on top of that will be compensatory grants (equalisation) to clubs with poorer stadia deals, or lower exposure (and thus sponsor value) due to the AFL's fixturing and focus on 'Blockbuster' guaranteed slots for certain clubs. Gold Coast therefore didn't get 'propped up' or 'bailed out' to the tune of $25 million. The reported increased from the prior year was around $5.5 million to allow them to break even. Often the AFL provides an extra-ordinary grant with respect to specific projects and that's where the Suns and Giants have had extra to help seed and evolve their training facilities as well as Metricon and Spotless Stadiums. What I'm curious about - is how the FFA handles centralised funds with the privately owned clubs in the HAL?? Is Waz's precis below roughly the tale?
Square Nostrils
Guest
Pretty comprehensive and damning.