A Time to Talk and Make Changes

There have been many great leaders who have turned a negative situation into a positive one. It will be interesting to see how many of our corporate, governmental and sporting leaders manage to achieve this during the period when many activities are on hold due to the Covid-19 Pandemic.

Certainly it is a great opportunity to reflect on where your organisation sits, the mistakes made and the opportunities to implement change that will see the business, sport or club in a better position moving forward.

Outgoing Technical Director of the Football Federation of Australia Rob Sherman recognised despite having resigned that the current time was the chance for the Football Federation to reassess where it was headed.

“There was a window of opportunity because of the lack of activity,” he said to FTBL.com.au “Generally what happens – because the football side of the game is under resourced – the technical people are so busy that they don’t have time to build resources, redefine and refine programs, because they’re so busy just delivering what they’ve got to do. It was a perfect opportunity to co-ordinate a whole raft of things and get input from a whole raft of people across the game in this hiatus and actually get yourself lined up so that when restart happens all the ducks are in in place. And that hasn’t happened.”

There will be many who are sitting on their hands during this time and not taking advantage of the time they have to put issues right.

There have been plenty who are quick to say that the sporting landscape is going to change once we come out of isolation, and the world starts to try and return to normal. Yet how many are discussing the best way forward with their stakeholders and members?

Football in Australia has the ideal opportunity to right the ship at this point in time.

The A-League is a seperate issue, but what is vital is that the game below the A-League is given CPR. The NPL which was only created to satisfy a promise made to the Asian Football Confederation, so that Australia could be admitted to Asia rather than playing in Oceania, has always been on shaky ground. Here was a program that had failed in the Netherlands, a strong traditional football nation, how did anyone in their right mind believe it would work here?

Sadly weak club administrators kow-towed to the FFA’s lapdogs who were told to make it happen no matter what. Did some of those who helped push it through receive benefits for swaying the others? Certainly they should be kept well away from the game now.

As predicted, in Western Australia the NPL has damaged the game and most of the traditional clubs find themselves in financial trouble.

So what can be done to right the ship and get it back on course?

As Rob Sherman highlighted in a piece headed “Out of the crisis a fresh approach for Australian Football, “the current governance structure and financial model has been exposed by the crisis. The siloed approach where each state operates independently with differing structural models and strategies makes the game hugely inefficient.”

This puts under the spotlight the structure of the various standing committees and Zone representatives. The way that they are currently operating is a far cry from the recommendations put forward by the Crawford Report. Are they being stymied by having Football West staff members sit on on their meetings? Are the representatives elected as recommended, and do they have the game’s interests as their focus, or their individual clubs?

Rob Sherman went on to say that the current administrative mindset within the game is purely on revenue and not on development. He believed those with Technical football know-how should be setting out the structure the game requires and the business built around that.

The third paragraph of Mr Sherman’s report/article hits the nail firmly and squarely on the head. “The Game is governed in Australia through board’s of management. This places non-football experts in decision making positions so enabling them to promote the interests of a few vocal constituents and protect their own football position. This then in-turn places CEO’s and adminstrators in a position that in order to protect their jobs they bow to the board’s direction.” There are many in the game who will no doubt be nodding in agreement with that view.

As Sherman quite rightly said “the game is run by a small number of people who can dictate the direction of the game instead of ensuring good governance and propriety is followed.”

Those who have allowed this to happen should hang their heads in shame. Those who have watched good football people walk away from the game should be taking a good look in the mirror. The crowds at NPL games are a reflection of that, the standard of coaches is a reflection of that.

“The football direction should be left to those employed for their expertise,” Sherman went on to write. “The administrators should focus on long term planning, excellent administrative process, resourcing, securing and managing finance. Instead we have a culture that focuses on appeasing boards and convincing the stakeholders and media of what a good job they are doing in an effort to hold onto position and power.”

There is no doubt that Football’s management is top heavy, Sherman advocates having regional bases, and questions the need for nine CEO’s across the country. WE raised this in 2015 under the heading “Should Non-Elite Sport Be Run as A Business?” The key quote in this piece vape from the CEO of the Edmund Rice Foundation, Anthony Ryan when he said “the default of most not for profits is they turn into a fundraising body to try and resource what they are trying to do.”

Sherman goes on to reveal that there is no accounting for the annual fees that players of all levels pay, once the money is reallocated back to the various state federations. “The cost of football is rightly highlighted as an area of concern. Ironically FFA gets an average of $14 per player of which they give back an average of $11 per player to the Federations. Currently the amount of income derived from registered players is ambiguous and varies from state to state and seldom seems to be accounted for.” Sherman writes. “What the Federations and Associations actually take from players and how they spend this money seems to be a mystery that is unacceptable. These parties derive income and spend this in any way they see fit.” Few would argue with these comments and should be lobbying the standing committee representatives to obtain answers; some have, but answers have not been forthcoming.

“Serious consideration should be given to a centralised and standard registration fee.” Sherman suggested. “For example, if each player paid a $100 registration fee, regardless of age or gender, then the game would have a flat line income of in excess of $50 million per annum. This can then be reallocated back through the regional offices (Federations and Associations) and tagged in a way that enables the running of competitions and finances targeted development.”

Sherman also advocated a license fee to be paid by Academies. Again something that we covered in Money or the Game? Yet many of these Academies evolved out of a lack of planning when it game to game development, and the FFA handing out more coaching badges than there were jobs. (Academies filling the Void in Schools). The licensing of academies was something that was put forward several years ago, but the feeling was that the horse had already bolted. The FFA believing that there were too many Academies now to enforce such a program. Yet it still makes sense, and would enable unsuspecting parents to be able to know which were FFA approved and which were not.

“The major cost to the player often comes from the clubs. Much of the cost may be justified but a much more transparent mechanism by which parents can judge whether money they are paying is being spent on their child or being directed into the pockets of the first team needs to be in place.” Sherman wrote and then added, “There are players earning huge amounts in under the table payments for a relatively ordinary level of football at the expense of investment in development.”

Few can argue with that. Clearly here was a man who in his time as Technical Director had a grasp of the problems facing the game in Australia. He recognised that the A-League is an “absolute essential” to the game, but as many have stated time and again, the clubs need their own stadia, and to build established fan bases. He believes that a transfer system will generate much needed income streams, as would meaningful player development. Something the A-League owners allegedly were not interested in.

One of the reasons he advocated that the A-League clubs take on this responsibility is that it would mean that the member Associations and Federations would no longer need to be in this space and derive revenue from it. He believed that their focus should be in the main in regional areas where development is most needed. In the metropolitan areas this development should be left to the clubs.

Nearing the end of this piece he writes “As a fundamental principle the starting point for the professional game must be the development of high-quality players. There is a correlation between international success and the level of leagues and clubs in which young players play. Quality youth development will increase the player market value.” He goes onto explain how everyone has to work together in this space, to raise the standard of players, which will improve the quality of games, improve the A-League, and will once again see players being transferred to play in the top leagues around the world. This will in turn be a source of revenue, and will boost the performances of the International teams, which in turn will attract sponsors.

Sherman talks a lot of sense and it is sad that he is leaving. He is absolutely right that now is the time for the administrators to listen to input from those who play the game, coach the game and referee the game. Sherman finished by saying its time to “put Football first, and the administrators and politicians undertake the important task of managing the operational and finance aspects help bring that to life.”

Is there a leader out there who will see that Sherman is right and will lead the clubs and the game forward, by standing up to the current strictures in place and make changes that will benefit the game as a whole and not just their club?

Clearly Rob Sherman had a grasp for what the game needed at this point in time. Sadly the administrators he alludes to blocked those changes, and the game will be the poorer for it. Will his replacement face the same obstacles?

More importantly will anybody take heed and take the time now, while there is time to listen to the views and suggestions of people who know the game, and have played the game at a high level?