March is done and so to a degree is the big sports reporting season. Let’s dive into the numbers.
With little fanfare the AFL 2018 annual report came out in recent weeks. The NRL 2018 annual report has also landed. The FFA has their 2018 annual review, and split out from that now is their 2018 National Participation Report. All codes like to report ‘record’ or ‘number-one’ status.
We are far better served now than ever before. You can download annual AFL reports dating back to 2005. The NRL archive goes back to 2014. As for the FFA, what you can find is a bit more hit and miss.
Nevertheless, the reporting is done and the numbers are on the table. It’s not survey extrapolations we’re after but numbers based on actual registrations, the coalface of national sport. That said, there is some need to drill in to work out just what the total numbers represent.
I’ll focus on the two biggest players, the FFA and the AFL.
Governments across all tiers have driven the codes into a ‘mine’s bigger than yours’ statistical culture. This is summed up in the FFA’s ‘Football participation grows to record levels‘ proclamation, with the annual census identifying a roughly $500 million facilities funding gap.
David Gallop was quoted as saying, “We are calling on government to join with us to deliver improved facilities and programs which can help improve participation even further, drive gender equality, integrate new communities and deliver strong preventative health outcomes”.
This is like a policy speech before an election – all the right boxes are ticked off. The problem is that it’s a crowded marketplace, and working in partnership with governments of all tiers is often the best way to get the desired outcomes.
Via personal experience I saw firsthand during the 2000s that local government, when considering funding requests, was going to look very favourably upon pretty well all of those areas that Gallop referred to. At the time I was involved with a local sporting club committee and we couldn’t tick female participation, we weren’t a clear multicultural standout, we had no juniors and at the time we did not cater to people with disabilities, though we went down that path eventually.
At that time football in the FFA era was experiencing a boom in female participation. In Melbourne suburbs like Box Hill and Glen Waverley, the local councils were interested in engaging the growing Chinese and Indian populations. It was very important for the sporting codes to be on the same page as those who hold the public purse strings.
And so here were are, the 2018 numbers are in. What’s it all look like? And what do the numbers mean? What is the context?
Will the Australian cricket crisis ever end? (Photo by Michael Willson/AFL Media/Getty Images)
Starting with the FFA, their 2018 national summary proclaims a total participation of 1,851,683 people. That’s an impressive number and a 13 per cent growth on 2017’s 1,631,041 participants. It’s even more impressive considering they reported in 2016 participants numbered only 1,188,911. That’s a jump of over 660,000 in two years. That’s impressive and sure to catch the attention of government.
Breaking it down, we can review the key reporting areas. The first is “outdoor affiliated football” which comprises the MiniRoos, youth and senior registered players. This number hasn’t varied that greatly – from 499,361 in 2016 to 527,650 in 2018. The female proportion has grown from 20 per cent to 21 per cent. An additional 28,000 players during a period proclaims a total increase of 660,000 participants. That’s curious. Where are the other roughly 630,000?
The major increase since 2016 is an increase of 393,211 in the imaginatively titled “tournaments, events and community programs”. This accounted for over 304,000 of the 442,130 increase from 2016 to 2017. However, in 2017 some new subtotals were added to increase the bottom line, those being coaches and referees, which added pretty well 40,000 in 2017. In 2018 the bottom line has been further boosted by tallying 19,417 volunteers, 8317 via “diversity and inclusion” and a further 7000 or so extra coaches and referees.
What is clear is that boosting that bottom line by whatever means is clearly a strategy. Just how truly reflective it is of unique individual participation comes into question when we ponder the potential for overlap of participation. The FFA tally includes a tick under 140,000 futsal and “social” players along with almost 560,000 via schools (287,000 in competitions and 271,000 in programs). That’s fine. However, there must be a large number of school participants who also play club sport and likewise club players who play social or futsal.
What is interesting too is that the FFA proclaims the MiniRoos as the leading junior introductory program within Australia. However, it is also bundled under the category of outdoor competition rather than programs. This is a note to consider as I launch into the AFL review.
(Photo by Tony Feder/Getty Images)
The AFL total participaton number for 2018 is 1,649,178. At this point the FFA has it by almost 200,000. It’s clear cut. Or is it?
The AFL ‘competitions’ tally is 739,716. However, that number includes social and school competitions. As per my point above, there must be scope for overlap or double-dipping on participants. The school competitions tally is an impressive 328,760, so head to head the AFL is leading the FFA.
While the AFL includes school comps in this category, it does not include its introductory AusKick. This instead is tallied under ‘programs’. The AFL did in 2018 breakdown their ‘club’ participation into junior, youth, senior and vets.
As best as I can match like with like.
| Category | AFL | FFA |
|---|---|---|
| Juniors | 140,414 | – |
| Junior intro program | 205,755 | 227,734 |
| Youth | 122,811 | 161,848 |
| Senior | 115,407 | 138,068 |
| Vets | 8,292 | – |
| Subtotal (clubs/intro) | 592,679 | 527,650 |
| School comps | 328,760 | 287,527 |
| Comps total | 921,439 | 815,177 |
This might declare the AFL as the winner. However, of course we’ve not added in the FFA’s tournaments and events wildcard, which doesn’t have an AFL equivalent.
So rather than declaring a winner, I would like to assert that anyone can pretty well make the reported number validate pretty well any argument they wish to launch.
It appears the AFL wins in schools with a combined 1.01 million via competitions and programs against 558,000 for the FFA. I don’t know, however, whether the AFL adds coaches, umpires et cetera into the bottom line or not. They get reported, but it’s not clear whether they are included.
As it is, the international participation number also gets reported but is not included in the bottom line, and I have seen references that distinguish between participants and coaches and umpires, so I’m really not sure. I would appreciate clarification from anyone who knows for certain.
The trends are important, but even then, as with the FFA boosting their bottom line, you still have to ensure that the trend you believe you are observing is based on a consistent set of metrics.
So the real trends are as follows. For the FFA, the MiniRoos program has grown 6.2 per cent from 2016-18. Youth participation is up 4.06 per cent and senior participation is up 6.69 per cent.
For the AFL, Auskick has grown 5.1 per cent in this time. Club footy is up 7.28 per cent and female club footy has grown by about 218 per cent, with overall female paticipation rising by about 39.5 per cent. That’s a total participation growth of 17 per cent.
The AFL is currently riding the wave, the boom time, of growing female participation – girls in schools and girls in clubs. It seriously has been an explosion that has caught many off guard, which brings us back to the fight for facilities, the fight for the ear of government and of course the importance of reporting the numbers.
It also helps illustrate the challenge for the codes to sustain growth (or the perception of it) across all demographics.
Simmo
Guest
Apologies for the great wall of text. Hopefully formatted below -- I take a keen interest in these figures from respective sporting organisations. Like others I’ve had a very long detailed look at the national and state figures offered by the various codes as a health check of where things are at. But I’ve come to the conclusion that comparisons between codes are now next to useless. I didn’t get there quickly or lightly, but the more we look at the detail, the more it becomes clear that these stats have a core of truth, but cloaked in various pieces of bunkum. First, we shouldn’t expect consistent measurements across the codes. They have their own definitions of what should and shouldn’t be counted, and then how those figures should be categorized. There’s a fair whack of apples and oranges in these figures people are discussing. Second, even within a code the various state level bodies aren’t necessarily reporting the same way to the national HQ. Two examples stood out to me in this year’s stats. In the FFA stats, Football NSW had about triple the number of outdoor winter players than Football Victoria. That ratio has been consistent for about a decade, no controversy there. But FV report something like 5 times as many futsal players as FNSW. How is that possible? Is futsal really 15 times more popular than outdoor in Victoria compared to NSW? Doubtful. There’s likely an error in the stats. Similarly, in the 2018 AFL stats, NSW/ACT had practically the same number of competition players as WA. Pretty unlikely when compared to previous years’ statistics from those states where NSW had approx. 1/3 the number of club players as WA. There isn’t an attempt to deceive, instead the two jurisdictions are not using the same definitions for their stat creation. Third, ignore “programs” however described (eg/ “rugby experiences”). These are bought and paid for by the respective HQs through their investments in development officers. The recipients of the programs have only a few hours of contact with that sport and very little flow on to serious commitment. The kids also get lots of different sports programs each year, but again, all light touch. There’s very little meaningful value here that we can use for a health check. Which begs the question, what is a serious commitment versus what is just light touch and meaningless? Club comps are bloody good start. And committed private school comps or public school comps, if you can find them (school leagues don’t publicly report on their numbers, but the State federations will report on those school teams that engage with an affiliated tournament). We tend to get accurate numbers in club systems (but not perfect) but never the full picture for schools, so in total we only have a partial picture of committed playing numbers. Which leads to point 3, and probably the biggest criticism I have – affiliation. The FFA, AFL, RA, ARLC can only audit and report on participation for leagues and players that are actually affiliated to them (ie/ “registered participants” means “registered to us”). Players who are not affiliated to their national body don’t make it into the national body’s stats. This includes private schools who do their own thing (Rugby people are very conscious of this), public school leagues that affiliate to their state education departments, various indoor comps hosted at leisure centres and gyms, various independent 5 and 6-a-side leagues hosted around cities, ethnic community tournaments and Church leagues that all add up to something of a “black economy” for the various codes that the national bodies have no relationship to. And of course there’s the non-organised jumpers-for-goalposts games too. So we don’t just have a problem with double, triple, quadruple and quintuple counting, we have a bigger and more obvious problem with *under-counting*. Personally, I’ve played quite a lot of footy over the last 30 years but the last time I was counted in a national body’s stats was way back in 1988!
Simmo
Guest
I take a keen interest in these figures from respective sporting organisations. Like others I’ve had a very long detailed look at the national and state figures offered by the various codes as a health check of where things are at. But I’ve come to the conclusion that comparisons between codes are now next to useless. I didn’t get there quickly or lightly, but the more we look at the detail, the more it becomes clear that these stats have a core of truth, but cloaked in various pieces of bunkum. - First, we shouldn’t expect consistent measurements across the codes. They have their own definitions of what should and shouldn’t be counted, and then how those figures should be categorized. There’s a fair whack of apples and oranges in these figures people are discussing. - Second, even within a code the various state level bodies aren’t necessarily reporting the same way to the national HQ. Two examples stood out to me in this year’s stats. o In the FFA stats, Football NSW had about triple the number of outdoor winter players than Football Victoria. That ratio has been consistent for about a decade, no controversy there. But FV report something like 5 times as many futsal players as FNSW. How is that possible? Is futsal really 15 times more popular than outdoor in Victoria compared to NSW? Doubtful. There’s likely an error in the stats. o Similarly, in the 2018 AFL stats, NSW/ACT had practically the same number of competition players as WA. Pretty unlikely when compared to previous years’ statistics from those states where NSW had approx. 1/3 the number of club players as WA. There isn’t an attempt to deceive, instead the two jurisdictions are not using the same definitions for their stat creation. - Third, ignore “programs” however described (eg/ “rugby experiences”). These are bought and paid for by the respective HQs through their investments in development officers. The recipients of the programs have only a few hours of contact with that sport and very little flow on to serious commitment. The kids also get lots of different sports programs each year, but again, all light touch. There’s very little meaningful value here that we can use for a health check. - Which begs the question, what is a serious commitment versus what is just light touch and meaningless? Club comps are bloody good start. And committed private school comps or public school comps, if you can find them (school leagues don’t publicly report on their numbers, but the State federations will report on those school teams that engage with an affiliated tournament). We tend to get accurate numbers in club systems (but not perfect) but never the full picture for schools, so in total we only have a partial picture of committed playing numbers. - Which leads to point 3, and probably the biggest criticism I have – affiliation. The FFA, AFL, RA, ARLC can only audit and report on participation for leagues and players that are actually affiliated to them (ie/ “registered participants” means “registered to us”). Players who are not affiliated to their national body don’t make it into the national body’s stats. - This includes private schools who do their own thing (Rugby people are very conscious of this), public school leagues that affiliate to their state education departments, various indoor comps hosted at leisure centres and gyms, various independent 5 and 6-a-side leagues hosted around cities, ethnic community tournaments and Church leagues that all add up to something of a “black economy” for the various codes that the national bodies have no relationship to. And of course there’s the non-organised jumpers-for-goalposts games too. - So we don’t just have a problem with double, triple, quadruple and quintuple counting, we have a bigger and more obvious problem with *under-counting*. Personally, I’ve played quite a lot of footy over the last 30 years but the last time I was counted in a national body’s stats was way back in 1988!
Munro Mike
Roar Rookie
#RandyM "Leagueunlimited".....I've been there in the past, there are some droobers who 'keep score'. You do realise NewsCorp head office is Sydney; while 7 West Media is Perth based, the 7 Network and Yahoo are Sydney based. Any directive from the top.....would be coming out of Sydney. The AFL gets plenty of bad press - although on this off season just gone - the NRL set a new benchmark!! These days - the drunken or disrespectful stories a 'click bait' as much as anything else. For me what's more of an issue - is when there is a major 'topic'; such as illicit drugs; and how the media perhaps take sides and push a particular narrative via comments rather than reporting factually. Big issues like that can also - as this did back in 2007 - get mired in politics. True colors back then illustrated that if the 'Herald Sun' were supposed to be a friend of the AFL......that seriously wasn't the case!!
The Joy Of X
Roar Rookie
@ Chris (1) You said "I recently did a search on clubs in NSW to join to play AFL. There were probably 20-30 all up?...This was across all age groups". You know Australian Football Club numbers are FAR higher, and that your comments above are false. How many junior and senior Australian Football Clubs are there really in NSW in 2019. And in Sydney in 2019? How many were there in 1982? (2) @ 10.43 am on 5.4 you said " AFL will never have a serious footprint in Sydney. And I suspect in Brisbane as well". There are currently a record 100+ AFL players who were originally from NSW, ACT, or Qld. The AFL Commission and the Clubs are very happy with this rapidly increasing trend, and have stated this trend will only increase further. How has this record been achieved; and is the confidence of the AFL and its Clubs justified? (3) At the Big Footy link (3rd AFL Team Eventually in Sydney) I have provided above, there are many recent links and direct quotes from multiple ex Union/ League/soccer players and Officials- and mainstream media Union/League etc. journalists- stating that community male Union and League numbers have had a serious decline in Sydney; and that community Australian Football is having strong growth in Sydney (and NSW), as well as the AFL generally. Are all these people lying also- and besmirching their own preferred sports (non-AFL, obviously)? Can you specifically rebut their claims? Why would they lie?
Munro Mike
Roar Rookie
I guess it depends on the definition of 'sufficient'. IF - the 'competition' (i.e. soccer) isn't booming on the back of this demographic; then my suggestion will be that the 'sufficient' bar is lowered somewhat. And some of my examples are the developing interest in the game actually from the Pakistani, Sri Lankan and Indian communities. It's not huge as yet however the efforts of Sudip Chakraborty in India shows how sometimes a fairly innocuous 'development' opportunity can spark great things (read from 2014 here) and from their website (ARFAI website) you can see that they managed to tick off adding an 8th state in Bihar late in 2017. AFL Sri Lanka is relatively new - but it was great to see SL debut at the AFL International Cup in 2017 (coached by Enrico Misso, one of the few SL heritage players in the then VFL (one game wonder, playing ruck against 'Harry' Madden at Princes Park in 1985). There's some enthusiasm here and in SL. There's potential there and a level of proof that there are those for whom Aust Footy can be attractive. There IS a symbiotic sporting relationship of Australia with these nations (not referring to China on this front) - and the commonality of cricket/ovals. So - - see how it goes - - as mentioned, if the worst is that these demographics are playing cricket all winter then that's not tragic.
RandyM
Guest
it's quite funny, if you ever go to Leagueunlimited, Rugby league's biggest fan forum there is a huge collection of links to articles by AFL and Rugby Union journalists attacking and singling out Rugby League "culture" and its players, endless doom and gloom stuff. Threads with pages and pages of examples of MSM slander against Rugby League, usually ABC and Channel 7. These are from people who mainly follow AFL and Rugby Union. I understand Soccer experiences this as well, don't they have a whole website dedicated to it?
The Joy Of X
Roar Rookie
@ Munro Mike Good Ratings' analysis. It should also be noted that Roy Masters has written/stated numerous times that NRL referees have a very long history of "evening up" NRL matches by deliberately allocating more '50/50' decisions to the team that is behind its opponent. He said they do this to increase the chances the game outcome will be more uncertain- and it is predicated on the correct view that 'close' games will average more viewers than one-sided games. Fox NRL commentators have made similar comments to Masters- but I can't remember their names.
Munro Mike
Roar Rookie
#chris No where have I said AFL is huge in Sydney. Perhaps this is the issue - you appear to be taking the view that Sydney is representative of the rest of Australia. What I've reviewed is the TOTAL NATIONAL numbers of the FFA and AFL. The 'apples with apples' for NSW requires the bundling of NSW-ACT. On that basis - we know before we start - the 'total' number for the FFA 1 million and 73,151. That's 58% of national. That is 'over representation' for this market. For Aust Footy the NSW-ACT runs at 279,505 which is 17% of total national. That is 'under represented' for this market. No surprises there. Other than that the AFL NSW-ACT is 3rd for national significance and QLD 4th, relegating SA to 5th and Tassie long way off in the dust. *Note - for AFL, Vic is 28.78% of total participation but 44.69% of competition by the AFL definition. ** Note - for the FFA, NSW-ACT is 52.67% of total outdoor affiliated.
The Joy Of X
Roar Rookie
@ Munro Mike Re the current VERY small numbers of Asian-Australians engaged in/playing Australian Football, I am not aware of any evidence that supports your view that "...there are examples of engagement with these communities that suggest 'SUFFICIENT' (engagement) can again be satisfied". Lin Jong is the only AFL player we have from an Asian background. You have not challenged my point that the average height of AFL players has increased significantly since about 1980; and play is far more congested now (including in community competitions) - both major impediments to short/light weight Asian Australians being able to be safe/succeed in the AFL. Without many more 'Jong' role models, I doubt the AFL will be able to maximize Asian Australian engagement with Australian Football. It has regularly been stated by experts that the major boom in female Australian Football participants since 2017 is primarily because of the high profile/creation of the AFLW in 2017. Role models! We had a record female stand alone, club only, AFLW Grand Final crowd of 53,034 2 weeks ago in Adelaide (which also outrated most AFL matches, over many years, also played on weekend mid-afternoons). Without the high profile AFLW role models, it would have been impossible for a State League women's Grand Final to achieve numbers remotely similar. Whilst some Asian Australians do go to AFL matches and play at community level, the numbers are far below their representation in Australia.
Munro Mike
Roar Rookie
#RandyM A couple of factors here. (and please respect that I'm not trying to argue down your position; just trying to drill down a little bit on the numbers and what they do/don't tell.). You'll notice that Roy Masters talks specifically about the 'average' viewers. That's one measure but a little superficial. For example - - An AFL match runs roughly 2 hours elapsed time. And NRL match is two 40 minute halves for 80 mins elapsed time (is there much stopped clock time these days??). Let's just say 120 mins v 90 mins. An avg 400,000 for the AFL match is 800,000 'hours' vs 600,000 'hours' for the NRL. That's simple maths. Then comes the equation of the number of ads inserted. Ironically the NRL player tops are walking billboards - - they've sold out that domain entirely (similar to soccer - - I for many years could pick "carlsberg" vs "sharp" but don't ask me what clubs there were!!!). The other advantage the NRL has created for themselves (and good on them for doing this) - - is Friday night, 2 games on, one FTA and the other PayTV - and largely NOT going head to head - the advantage of a shorter run time. The AFL has stuck with a single game on Friday night. The AFL average on some matches is dragged down by virtue of the splitting of games across markets. In the Saturday night timeslot for example - FTA does NOT show the one game nation wide. This impacts averages - such that if a game involving the Lions v Port is shown into QLD and SA but the other game is the rest of the country - you'll get very varied averages - that's in some respects a by product of the extra game. And it's important to note - the NRL effectively services QLD and NSW on fairly stable time zone (now that daylight saving is done again). The AFL services the entire country with 2 teams in Perth, 2 in Adelaide and 4 in QLD and NSW. There is also an FTA AFL game in Brisbane & Sydney on a Sat afternoon - - guess what, we don't get that one in Melbourne (in Vic we get a VFL game, in WA a WAFL game, in SA a SANFL game). And then consider that EVERY AFL match is broadcast on Fox so every game that is on FTA is up against a Fox coverage. And - - again, with 9 matches there are more time slot overlaps. So - - do you see it's a bit redundant making the superficial comparison that Roy Masters makes in that article. btw = Friday night Ch 9 in Syd vs Ch 7 in Melb. NRL match runs 7.30 to 9.45 (2hrs 15 mins). AFL 7.30 to 10.30. So - let's do our earlier comparison with a twist. Suppose you have a 500,000 'avg' ratings for the NRL. The 'viewer hours' equates to 1,125,000. Support you have a 400,000 'avg' for the AFL broadcast. The 'viewer hours' equates to 1,200,000. Which is the higher value proposition?? The other important thing that we simple folk don't get to see - is the internal segmentation of the broadcast. 15 min slots. The AFL runs 7.30 to 10.30. Let's say it's matching the NRL for the first 2 hours and then falls away. Over a 3 hour run time - that could look like 500K, 500K and 200K for the 3 hours. That's were 'peak' viewers and things like that would be interesting to know. Roy Masters though has illustrated what I've asserted in this article - stats can be twisted or presented to support pretty well any argument. I won't say on ratings that NRL is better or worse than AFL - - they provide different product and service largely different markets in different ways; to me it's folly to try to pretend it to be apples with apples.
chris
Guest
Ok Mike I'm convinced. AFL is huge in Sydney and participation numbers are on par if not bigger than all other sports combined both male and female. And yes those pesky soccer players diving will definitely stop, now that we play on plastic.
Munro Mike
Roar Rookie
#Brainstrust What in particular do you not believe?? The main AFL growth in recent years has been via female participation. Come to Melbourne - you'd have to be blind to NOT be able to see that female participation has exploded. I've played for 30 years and now umpire and I'm constantly surprised at just how big it is at grass roots level. This article illustrates that this is the main reason for AFL growth in recent years. We saw this with soccer about 10 years ago. This article illustrates that for player numbers - soccer is effectively plateaued. And yet it's the FFA that has managed to concoct 'growth' of 600K in 2 years despite player numbers only accounting for 28K of it. SO - - - tell me what your thoughts are on the FFA numbers and their methodology (i.e. including coaches/refs/volunteers). Aust Footy in Sydney - - I'd suggest even without the Swans that it would have struggled during the Murdoch driven RL saturation phase (which almost killed off Aust Footy in PNG too). The VFL at the time had very little money or real power. However - 35 years down the track and the Swans are an imposing presence in the Harbour city. Not everything was done right in retrospect but it's easy to be an expect after the event. At least the AFL has identified the need for a talent pathway such that players like Mills and Heeney and Blakey can be developed.
clipper
Roar Rookie
I agree with you on this josh - I have said it many times, although I would say middle class, which is unusual as it's an all class game elsewhere, much like Soccer is. Perhaps it's to do with league being the working class game in Sydney.
clipper
Roar Rookie
That's effectively what happened - Rugby and AFL got about what they wanted, league got less and Soccer got more - league was too interested trying to stop the AFL getting more space and didn't even look at Soccer. Their presentation was a laugh - something like 'we don't want AFL here' no reasoning, statistics or info - I'm not joking - it may still be up on the councils website.
clipper
Roar Rookie
I tend to agree with you that you can't take participation figures as the rock solid truth - but why then just single out the AFL - all codes do it, all are after the government grants - but you have to have some basis of truth to it, you can't say 1 million are playing when there are just 1 thousand. The rest of your points just don't hold up though - there are far, far more AFL teams playing now than the 70's - that's just a fact.
clipper
Roar Rookie
Good point Munroe Mike - AFL is dominant in the cities you mention, so naturally the kids gravitate towards it to feel part of the group. Sydney is an all code city so there are many groups kids can gravitate to.
Munro Mike
Roar Rookie
#chris You go on about the apparent 'cosy relationship' between AFL and the 'msm'. I'm not sure you've thought too much about this. With the advent of subscription TV about 20 years ago - there's massive scope for the 'sleeping giant' of soccer to flex its muscles. That hasn't happened - has it. The forays into A-League on FTA (msm) have thus far been 'underwhelming' to put it mildly. The A-League 13 years on......is still somewhat 'underwhelming' - crowds, memberships, finances, etc - and that even after the female participation boom in the code and the W-League which just hasn't resonated. The irony though is that Soccer is Sydney-NSW centric. The 'msm' has been Sydney-NSW centric during this time as well. It's been a long, long time since you could seriously argue a 'cosy' relationship. Perhaps back to HSV-7, the Sun News Pictorial and the then VFL - back when apparently channel 7 in Melbourne thwarted the NSL nationwide??? (I love conspiracy theories). The other irony is that it was the Sydney centric msm that actually co-or fully owned the NRL and a number of its clubs. During a time in which that same Sydney centric msm were attacking the AFL as public enemy number 1 for daring to enter a 2nd team into the Greater Sydney market. Oh - but - don't let the facts get in the way of your personal narrative.
Munro Mike
Roar Rookie
#Redondo The more things change, the more they stay the same. That said - the AFL is clearly cognizant of this. It has focus very much on multi-cultural projects. It has to. Soccer by contrast - has to try to convince people coming here to be more interested in SFC/MVFC than in Man U or Real Madrid. That's a tough ask. For new arrivals below the Barassi line - the advantage still in the AFL 'world' is that the cities of Perth, Adelaide, Melbourne...there was NOT the sporting-cultural-demographic division that occurred in Sydney. In Melbourne - there's only the office AFL tipping comp - - very, very, very few workplaces would have anything else. Australian Football HAS succeeded in the past in attracting SUFFICIENT interest from new arrivals. The post WWII migration boom of the 50s/60s (including my parents from nrth Europe) - was a time where 'British Association Football' transformed into a game more synonymous with ethnic Europeans. Australian Football would see names like Ditterich, Jesaulencko, Schimmlebusch, Zantuck, Liberatore, Dipierdomenico etc rise to prominence. The challenge of the growing Indian and Chinese demographics is the latest. What is interesting is there are examples of engagement with these communities that suggest that 'SUFFICIENT' can again be satisfied. However - what we also see now in winter time is winter cricket competitions - populated entirely by Sri Lankan, Indian, Pakistani Australians playing 'their game' of preference all year round. The interesting thing about that is - these folk ARE NOT taking up soccer just because (less physical than other football codes).....instead, they stick with cricket. And back to the football codes - standing still is going backwards. Each has to innovate and evolve in what is probably the worlds most competitive domestic sports/football market.
Munro Mike
Roar Rookie
It was indicative of a time.....10 years ago - - the anti AFL sentiment was curious to see from the outside. The Daily Telegraph and then Roy Masters in the SMH - tag team effort to demonize the AFL. At the time I guessed it to be a rallying call to the RL fraternity - not so much to combat the AFL but to rally the forces against the threat of the greater but unnamed enemy in the round ball game (soccer). It didn't really work - RL going backwards and soccer dominating on the ground in Sydney (just not at the 'box office').
Munro Mike
Roar Rookie
In Sydney it's really going depend on where and when you go past a venue. As I illustrated last week - in AFL Sydney there were a dozen 'senior' venues being used this weekend on Saturday with generally 5 matches being played across the day (mens and womens) and in one case I saw there was a 6th game starting around 5:30. The 'away' grounds would be vacant for seniors.....but then there's the juniors. In some cases the saturday grounds were again being fully utilised on Sunday for juniors. So - - if you go to the right places - it'll be full on. I presume similar for other codes. And that's on grass.....soccer is 'lucky', they can play on synthetics.....(and that might discourage frivolous 'diving' practices).