A-League must run independently from FFA by 2019: FIFA

If there is no certainty the State Feds will vote as a bloc, then there's even less likely the ALeague clubs vote as a bloc. Heck only a few years ago, the Aleague clubs couldn't even agree on the person they would like to nominate for an FFA Board position. Let's be honest, the only really contentious issue each year for any Government is the Budget Papers. Everyone wants a piece of the pie. The way this new Congress will be structured, the States control the voting for ordinary resolution - e.g. passing the Budget.

I agree with your figures but Justin's point is still valid to this extent: that 41% is likely to exist as a bloc, but there is no guarantee that the state feds remain as a bloc, and recent history is telling us not to expect it. The professional game only needs to attract 2 of 9 Feds to get its way at board level. Mind you, if they are able to do that, one could argue that they've earned that right. Here is where it gets interesting. We have the four smallest federations currently making the most noise, but in truth, self-interest will rule the day. The tide is working against them, so what are they going to do to get the best outcome for themselves? Well, we only need two of these feds to vote in favour of the changes (precisely the same number the professional game will need in the future to have a bit of control over the board). Gentlemen, get your cheque books out.....

@Justin Mahon I think your figures are wrong. The Votes recommended are States = 55% ALeague = 28% Women = 10% PFA = 7% Now, if we add the women votes to the grous to whom they will align, we get States = 58% ALeague = 31% PFA = 10% Women (Independent) = 1% So, the professional game can only get maximum 41% on their own. And the States can get 50% of the vote by virtue of voting as a bloc.

Justin, How did you arrive at that percentage? And why do people keep referring to 60% as the threshold for proposals being passed? I haven't read that figure anywhere... The closest I found in the FFA Statutes was regarding the election of Directors to the FFA Board where it requires only a simple majority (50%) of valid votes... The Submission quite clearly states that the proposed model for the new Congress must be in line with the FIFA Statutes (Art. 15 (j), which state that for motions to be carried a 3/4 majority needs to approve of the motion (Art. 29.4).

I've been predicting it for 2 years. There is no incentive for either side to move (and the FFA is partialy constrained at law). This 'debate' is not about the congress going forward - it's all about the congress NOW as it make the beggest decision in the games modern history - selling the league off. Basicaly professional football wants to set the price for it's own sale to itself It's Game Theory 101.

Actually, there needs to 3/4 (75%) majority for motions to be passed by the Congress so the PFA alone is not 'a kingmaker' as such. I would be more worried With the APFCA having 31% of the vote & thus being able to vote down any proposal they don't like... I agree it will be better when there are more SIGs as members, but they too need to be serious enough to have proper governance structures in Place too and I think the majority of them atm don't - not even AAFC who seem to be the most active (proactive?) of them aren't there yet - something the CRWG submission specifically states they themselves ackonwledge.

The professional game gets 44.9% (or 4.9% more than required to change the FFA Board). Any State FED they can attract adds a further 6.1%. Basicaly we are about to hand the game to the clubs. Just like the 'good old days'. #GolfClap

With the CRWG structure, no single group can control 75% of the vote. That's the beauty of it. That's exactly what we want to avoid the nonsense we are facing right now. Everyone must work together, or, at least groups who are not always aligned must work together. It's a beautiful structure. The only changes - and they will come with time - will be to include: coaches, refs, special needs

Because it is not about voting power but rather which block controls the swings votes to make it to 60% Initially with the state feds controlling 58%, A-Leagues clubs controlling 31%, PFA controlling 10% and a independent Womens rep holding 1%, the FFA Board can only be elected with the support of the PFA or the a-league clubs. Effectively handing the balance of power to the PFA and also providing veto power to the state feds as they at least now to support the choice (Clubs and PFA alone can't get to 60%) Its a little better when the womens council becomes more independent as then it introduces a third stakeholder who can provide the votes to achieve the 60%. I would have liked to see more independent SIGs introduced now, like (AAFC, Referees, Futsal) to help broaden the congress base to more stakeholders so no single group holds the balance of power.

Good point, Brendo51. Although I have some slight, but important corrections: 1 - The CRWG submission refers to the Member federations as one of four 'stakeholder groups' (ref. Pt 14 on pg.39) and therefore it's NOT undeniable that the CRWG views all them together as 1 voting Block.. 2 - Also, whilst the PFA are undoubtedly 'winners' in this model with an increased representation to 10%, we have to recognise that it's both an increase from their current position of 0%, but also they will have a max of 4 (1 + 3 on the Women's Council) members out of a total of 29 members - only 14% of membership. It (the proposed model) also opens up for additional SIGs in the future which would dilute their influence further. As for the make-up of the 55 votes, I would hazard the guess that it is proportionate to each State & Territory Fed's number of registered players - this is afterall one of the main ciriticsms of the current model and is indirectly alluded to in the rationale for the 4-year cycle of governance review. Therefore based upon the submission's own figures of said federations player registrations, I calcultae the votes be as follows: FNSW - 24 votes FFV - 7 votes FQ - 7 votes FFNSW - 6 votes FW - 4 votes FFSA - 3 votes CF - 2 votes FFT - 1 votes FFNT - 1 votes Having said all that, I can understand if another mechanism has been put in place in order to redistribute the uneven balance of power in FNSW's favour (contra the smaller federations).

Yes an agreement is definitely on the cards now and I don't think it will get to a threatened expulsion. A lot of progress has been made already and I'm sure there will be an agreement reached before 2019 and a change for the better.

Nemisis has expressed the view that if the four smallest federations continue to stymie the vote to change the congress voting structure that Australia will be expelled from FIFA. It certainly remains a possibility. Another possibility is that FIFA asks the parties to continue working towards a structure which both meets their criteria and which will attract the necessary 75% vote, i.e. 8 of two congress votes.

Fantastic news. If its better than what we got. But lacking a bit of detail about the structure and makeup of the new A-League governing body and how the A-League will be run "Independently".. Can't wait for Vince Rugari and Pip and the rest of the Roar bloggers criticisms and complaints about the new A-League governing body when it takes over. There are lots of domestic football leagues around the world that aren't run "independently of their country's Football Associations". FIFA is yet to expel any country because of it and is very unlikely to.

If FIFA accepts the recommendations in the Report, it won't be in vain. It will either get implemented, or AUS won't ever return to FIFA. Either way, no problem. In parks around AUS, people will still organise themselves & kick a ball.

There's no problem. If 3 of the states decide not to vote for the Reform, then Australian football will be suspended until they change their minds. It might take a week, a month, a year, ten years. It might never happen and AUS football remains in the global football wilderness for eternity. Maybe, the Lowys can form their own version of FIFA. Oh, wait a minute, I think the FIFA Reform group doesn't like the Lowys either. Maybe, Clive Palmer & Steven Lowy can form a new global football empire - launch it on the Titanic2?

Canberra has next to zero chance of getting one of the next two licenses (unless someone manages to buy the ACT congress vote by promising entry to the A-League). Unfortunately, there's no one on that side of the vote with the authority to make such promises, but it's an interesting thought.

Agree

Nick What has Canberra's A-League bid got to do with the congress changes... unless Canberra are saying Lowy has promised us an A-League club for voting no.

The CRWG has done a decent job with this and produced a pretty good report. For the moment, it may all have been in vain because the FFA is already on the public record as opposing it, and as long as the four smallest Federations stay as a voting bloc against the proposed changes to the constitution, then there will be no change. Having said that, only two of the four would need to change their current stance.

That's precisely what Lowy is saying publicly. The four smallest feds are unlikely to accept it (only three are needed to knock it on the head).