Why Australian football must stop trying to conquer the past

You continue to defend the FFA who have mismanaged the game and brought it to its knees. The FFA do not need money from the professional game, that is a Lowy lie designed purely to retain control. The FFA - and their state federations - raise $55m in registrations each year and that, plus a very generous AFC distribution, sponsorship, and revenues from home games should be enough to run the FFA. You have presented no evidence why the professional game needs to give money to the FFA ... you’ve just taken Lowys word for it.

Nice take Midfielder. My ultimate look for the game in Australia would be: 16 A-league teams 14 A-League 2(2nd division) teams NPL Conference Finals(for best of NPL) NPL State Leagues With that league structure, you would have, Eventual pro-rel system from a-league to NPL Year-round football season aligned together for around 9 to 10 months of the year. More centralized approach for youth development with the best players and coaches funneled to the best clubs Most teams having its own facilities or playing in suitable grounds Central funding approach to support the game top to bottom (The late Mike Cockerill did a yarn on this years ago) Transfer/loan system from the a-league to NPL level FFA Cup spot for ACL. Im sure there is more to gain from this. But first lets get the independent a-league and 2nd division underway as this sets the foundation to be put in place. Bit by bit we will grow the game and get it where we want it to be to realise its true potential in Australia that we all want.

Lost in all the discussions about what the professional game/league(s) should or shouldn't look like and whether we should have "franchises" or "clubs" is the one fundamental question we need to ask - what do we want the professional game/league(s) primary purpose to be? For example. do we want its purpose to be to develop players capable of playing at senior international level? Do we want it to become the dominate football code in Australia? Do we want our league to be the predominant league in all of Asia? IMHO once we answer what we want the game to be in Australia then we can work backward from there in determining what the best set-up is.

Mid - you are an accountant (I think) but nowhere here do you cover the financial challenges of delivering on your dream/solution. Perhaps a part 2 could cover that...

Agree with you. It’s not helpful using the word ‘franchise’ to describe post WWII clubs that were formed essentially organically unlike HAL team owners who handed over $5m for a license to play.

Did you do any research. Did you ask any of the clubs. One of the poorest if not the worst article I have read on the roar about football. Its a mish mash of jumbled thoughts and inaccuracies. We have 11 franchises in the A-league counting Western Melbourne United. The rest are real clubs started by groups of people with common interests and run by their members for their members with actual voting rights and a say in how things are run. I think if you want a better understanding you should go out and actually seek someone who has an idea on the topic, perhaps Ian Syson could help you out, you definitely need it.

Hmm maybe. But name me one sport that doesnt consistently shoot itself in the foot one way or another?

Ha Ha - the Sleeping Giant again. Soccer was always going to be that but still after all these decades slumbers on with an occasional stir then back to sleep. I love the game, i loved coaching juniors and love watching the game these days. But the administration overall was always a basket case. At all levels someone would want things done their way and trouble would flare up again and again. Its no different now, that should be obvious to all concerned. That's why my dear old dad used to despairingly say "Soccer has a death wish in this country". And that, sadly, is not at all hard to believe i'm afraid. But then again there is always the Mighty Matildas to fly the flag for Oz Football and thats something worth bottling.

Hi Mid, I reckon the sleeping giant is the FFA cup. About 775 clubs ? make the competition the biggest in Australia. Most clubs have many teams including women and juniors. The sponsorship possibilities are huge with direct access to all those families. its not on most peoples radar at the moment, but that could change with the right type of backing. In time a Womens FFA cup is also a goer.

Mid - much as I admire your efforts (and guts), this subject you have commented on is an impossibility to encapsulate into a normal sized comment. Having joined an "association " team when I first arrived in Australia in 1963 it would be correct to say I have been involved,one way or another in the time period you have attempted to cover. From then ,1963 till today, would require a "novel" to describe the goings-on, and has actually been attempted by Joe Gorman, but even in Joe's book it is obvious to any knowing observer that somewhere along the line he has been fed 'facts" that are not strictly as to what happened in reality. Suffice to say your description of the past 65 years in football is a genuine attempt at telling the story but as I said it is totally impossible to cut it down to a page of "facts", with the result you make mammoth jumps in time (and history),while at the same time missing many critical points in the development of our game. Keep up the good work jb.

MF I suspect you are basing your argument solely on the NSW model, much of what you are talking about does not apply to SA. Yes we have many successful ethnic community/social clubs since the 1950s as well as many successful local community sporting clubs. Neither of which could be described as franchises. Some have had local business men support them and some have had an ethnic social club support them, again this doesn't mean they are franchises. AUFC came into being not as a franchise but as a club built out of necessity by the local state body the SASF, so it's origins were not as a franchise. It had to adapt to the current system to become who they are today.

What I am suggesting is there is a rather confused concept of what a "club" is and what a "franchise" is. To be fair, I may have missed this initially in your article, but your definition seems to be different again! So you are saying that a "regional association rep team" defines what a "club" is? The ethnic clubs, or at least all the ones I am aware of, were clubs formed by community groups that were incorporated under the legal definition of a club with a constitution that sets out membership voting rights etc. I.e. they are the very definition of a club. The fact they "represented" a community rather than a "regional association" makes them no less a club. Actually, I would say it makes them more of a club. They are certainly in no way "franchises". Having the backing of wealthy people doesn't make a team a franchise. Coming into existence through wealthy people buying a franchise licence makes you are franchise

Thanks for the article Mid. I agree that our model needs to be a hybrid system so that we encourage investment but not ignore the grassroots. We need to provide grassroots clubs even the smallest chance of promotion because it is that hope that will keep them interested vibrant and active at junior levels.

We also ignore population when talking about whose crowds are bad. The Jets, Phoenix and Mariners are the teams doing well while City and Glory (Happy to put my hand up) are doing bad with crowds.

The end result in 1955 was a new competition with effectively franchise teams run by businesspeople in the main, whose teams often shared an identity with their home country. In what way were these teams "franchises"? It seems as some point in Australian soccer's naval gazing the difference between "club" and "franchise" was boiled down to whether or not there is promotion of relegation in some form. Community clubs, like the ethnic clubs that formed in the 1950s and went on to dominate Australian soccer for the next 50 years, are clubs regardless of whether the league's they formed or entered had pro/rel The A-League franchises, started by business consortiums who successfully bid for licences, would continue to be franchises even if the A -League expanded to two divisions and pro-rel was established between the two of them. It would certainly still be a franchise league if it became "independent" of the FFA and the franchisees become part owners.

The bottom line will always be the mighty dollar. Funding a second tier and making it financially viable will be a major challenge in any future set up. Travel costs x distance required are enormous obstacles in a country the size of ours with a relatively small population. I have suggested on numerous occasions on various threads that whatever we do we should be closely watching and (heaven forbid) seeking help from the MLS as we have much in common, much to learn but we are on a smaller scale and have to live and work with those limitations. Expansion in the MLS has been gradual and largely successful – especially the arrival of Atlanta and to a lesser extent, the second LA team last season. A city with an estimated current population of 4 million only just spawned a second team – cautious or careful? Either way it appears that as in comedy, timing is everything. No sign of promotion or relegation in the MLS still; why not? Yes the franchise system doesn’t allow for it but there needs to be a closer examination and a better understanding of why the USA hasn’t gone down the traditional pathway. Glib responses such as “USA doesn’t set up that way” are fine but I’d be willing to bet that there are many other factors involved and much to learn. Is there anything to learn from their east west conference set up? There is also a knockout competition that runs concurrently with the MLS season and involves non MLS teams – anything to be learnt there? Player pools – there are a large number of central and south american players making a living in the MLS, what sort of impact does that have on home grown talent? Does it help draw in crowds? My experience of attending an MLS fixture is that there is enormous ethnic diversity which is also largely the case here. Does it help to have players that perhaps the supporters can readily identify with even if the players are not necessarily household names in their country of origin or international stars. It doesn’t mean having an ethnic based club although it could………. Then there is the whole matter of star quality and marquee signings. The current big two being Ibrahimovic and Rooney, maybe Altidore in Toronto. How do the maths add up with tese stars and what impact have they made? On this site I have seen a number of contributors sneer at the MLS and talk about it as being irrelevant. “Look at the top leagues” I hear but that approach misses the point and the opportunity to move forward and expand the game in this country whilst learning from others mistakes and gaining help from valuable resources, even possibly an alliance of some description. Learn from the past, don’t rip it up and don’t whitewash it either. It has all happened, don’t deny it or paint it a different colour, use it to bring about a better future outcome.

Couple of observations... 1) “My solution is to create a 28-team competition, growing to 36 in time, maybe more, across two divisions.” That’s not a solution, it’s a dream - the endpoint. You say nothing about how to achieve it. 2) “The MLS has shown the importance of being in both new and large media markets. Thereby Tasmania and Canberra should have a place.” So... are Tassie and Canberra simply “new” or are you suggesting they are “large”? Because if you’re talking about boosting broadcast revenue, neither Tassie not Canberra are included in tv ratings, and the population of both combined is about 800k...so we’re talking about small markets, relative to the rest of the country. This ‘piece’ seems to swing from “look to the MLS!”, to “look to the J-League!” Without any analysis or understanding how either model could be useful here.