Sweeping governance changes proposed for Football Federation Australia by a FIFA-backed working group appear likely to fall at the first hurdle.
Tuesday is the deadline for the eight-member congress review working group to submit their document to the world governing body on how FFA’s membership should be expanded to comply with FIFA statutes.
FIFA has directed its proposal be adopted at an FFA special general meeting by September 7.
However, AAP understands a furious late lobbying effort from FFA has all but ensured the working group’s changes will be blocked if they go to a vote.
An amendment to FFA’s constitution is required to pass the changes, which means 75 per cent of the current 10-member congress must vote in favour.
FFA has convinced Capital Football and Football Federation Northern Territory to vote against it, and they are believed to be supported by at least one other state federation.
Those three votes are enough to block the changes.
FFA’s position, and that of the state federations in their corner, is that the working group’s recommendations would tip the balance of power too far in the favour of A-League clubs, putting at risk the proportion of funding currently allocated to grassroots football and youth national teams.
FFA is also unhappy that the structure of the congress working group does not account for the views of the state federations who are not part of it.
The clubs believe they generate the majority of FFA’s revenue and are therefore entitled to a larger slice of it.
Should the working group’s proposal not be adopted, the ball will effectively be back in FIFA’s court.
FIFA had the opportunity to sack chairman Steven Lowy and FFA’s board and replace it with a ‘normalisation committee’ in November 2017 when the last deadline for governance change was not met.
It chose instead to establish the congress review working group in a last-ditch attempt to force a diplomatic solution.
With that now doomed to fail, the big question is what FIFA will do next. Normalisation appears to be its only remaining option, but that could be met with potential legal action from FFA.
FIFA did not respond to a request for comment from AAP on Tuesday, nor did the chairmen of Capital Football and FFNT.
The irony is that the latest skirmishes have come at a time when collaboration between FFA and the clubs is at its highest point in the last few years.
Other working groups have been formed and are operating cordially to discuss topics such as marquee players, a new collective bargaining agreement for players and the feasibility of a national second division.
But while executives in those two camps might be on good terms, the relationships between Lowy and the A-League club owners remains strained.
Cousin Claudio
Roar Guru
This blog about the FFA Congress is set to drag on . . . Geez Pip, the A-League season kickoff is still 3 months away and all this negative stuff already. Going to be another boring football season on the Roar, if that's all you people got.
RF
Guest
Agree on all points.
Nemesis
Guest
Model (2) & (3) as you've described has never been mentioned in any of the discussions over the past 12 months. There has never been mention of a 1 ref member. The only additional group on Congress that was suggested late last year were PFA members. Regardless, none of those models remotely fits the structure FIFA has mandated.
Stephen WHATLEY
Guest
Fans need to Boycott the game until these clowns are gone! It worked before as its the only thing they understand.
Cousin Claudio
Roar Guru
Instead of everyone criticising the FFA and calling for their heads, read the details of the discussions and agreements so far. Its easy to criticise without knowing the facts. There will be a lot of change under the new Congress and FFA Board structure that will be implemented already. More importantly mechanisms for further change in future are being put in place as well.
Cousin Claudio
Roar Guru
Yes.
Cousin Claudio
Roar Guru
What does "FIFA compliant" mean. Most football competitions in the world are not run by independent commissioners but by Football Associations or Private companies with boards like the FFA. The English Football Association Premier League Ltd (FAPL) is operated as a private corporation and is owned by the 20 member clubs. Each club is a shareholder, with one vote each on issues such as rule changes and contracts.
Stevo
Roar Rookie
You make too much sense for some people. That in 2018 we would run a competition that was not FIFA compliant and all that flows from it is simply just mad. FFA would be the emperor without clothes.
Nemesis
Guest
FFA hits back at the media reports it is acting inappropriately. FFA says it fully supported the Congress WG, says the Report contains positive steps that FFA totally supports; but has some concerns about certain aspects. So, pretty reasonable, normal reaction. https://www.ffa.com.au/news/ffa-statement-congress-review-working-group-report
MQ
Guest
Definitely agree with all of that, but it follows that both of them, and the other small federations, are therefore likely to be more amenable to such approaches (and thinking it through, it really wouldn't take a lot of convincing from the man holding more than one set of purse strings).
MQ
Guest
IN this particular context, Tassie is no different to the other three, shall we say, more amenable federations: they're all smallish, easily bought and/or willing to believe that they are likely to get trampled upon by the larger federations. It's notable that the four largest federations were the ones representing the states in the working group.
Nemesis
Guest
Most likely, competitors would prefer to have the existing FFA Board in charge since they're doing an average to poor job. If the ALeague actually get people administering who are experts in marketing, promotions, communications, etc. the competition will only be more advanced. Plus, with an independent ALeague, huge investment will pour into the competition as the investors will have a reason to invest. For sure, there would be some messiness in moving sponsorship contracts across &, most likely, if the FFA Board remains particularly obstinate, the 10 existing ALeague entities will have to create new names & branding.
RF
Guest
Business organisations rarely, in my experience, forgo the chance to exploit the weakness of a competitor when the opportunity arises.
RF
Guest
I assumed that third fly on the icing would be Tasmania - mainly because I'm from there originally, played the game there, and have a pretty good idea of the rather singular view of Tasmanians of the "mainland".
RF
Guest
I have to say, MQ, this is somewhat disingenuous of you. Of course AFL will take advantage the situation to portray football as a faction ridden basket case in this country. They would simply be doing what any rival business would do. Exploit and opponent's weakness. To expect them to do otherwise is unrealistic. I'm not trying to start a code war here - just stating what I believe would be a significant negative outcome of a normalisation committee in the domestic context.
RF
Guest
As usual, Jonathon Howcroft summarises the situation eloquently https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/aug/01/time-for-ffa-to-show-real-leadership-and-bring-miserable-chapter-to-an-end
Brendo51
Roar Pro
Cannot believe it hasn't been leaked already.
Midfielder
Guest
Waiting for the leak of the key recommendations put to FIFA .
Kris
Guest
I think if you are the ACT or NT it isn't so much about being in Lowy's pocket - but right now you hold a veto. You are in a strong position to ensure funding to your programs. Under a 20-delegate model you just went from 1/7th of the votes to 1/20th and you may never see another dollar spent in your state.
Brendo51
Roar Pro
Agreed, no argument from me there.