Acting in The Best Interests?

To the average hockey fan in Australia news that the Hockey Australia Board had committed to the upcoming FIH Pro-League seasons six (2024/25), seven (2025/26) and eight (2026/27) may not have even registered any reaction.

To those who follow the sport very closely this news came as a shock. The whisper prior to this board meeting was that Australia was going to withdraw both its men’s and women’s teams from the global league, which has not lived up to expectations.

The President of the FIH was in Australia in the week leading up to this board meeting and clearly made an impact. The Hockey Australia statement reading, “Hockey Australia expressed its concerns to the FIH regarding the current model of the Pro League last year. FIH President, Tayyab Ikram recently visited Australia as part of his commitment to the development of hockey globally. Hockey Australia CEO, David Pryles commended the show of faith by the FIH President to the growth of hockey worldwide and the strong relationship Hockey Australia continues to build under his tenure saying there is a renewed sign of confidence in the FIH by Hockey Australia.”

Quotes that in fact say very little.

Hockey Australia has historically had a very strong relationship with the FIH, and has been seen as a leader in the sport for a long time. Sadly with changes in personnel at Hockey Australia it is fair to say that that reputation has diminished in recent times. At a time when many countries were hoping Australia would take a stand, which they would follow, they have have been left disappointed.

The FIH Pro League was allegedly five years in the making. However, it was was not to be a competition just for the top teams in the World. As the FIH explained in 2019, “the criteria were developed around meeting the three main objectives of the new event portfolio: to generate a massive change in TV and media coverage for hockey; create big, bold, packed and loud events and to make a step change in future revenues for the sport.”

In December 2016, the FIH sent application documents to the top 16 men’s and women’s hockey nations as listed in the FIH Hero World Rankings. when they did so they advised that “We were clear that the teams would be chosen by a specially selected FIH Event Portfolio Implementation Panel.”

The FIH held extensive discussions with national broadcasters in the lead up to the start of the FIH Pro League and locked in broadcasters in almost all of the participating nations. It was stated at the time that “the commitment of national broadcasters is fundamental to the success of the FIH Pro League in promoting the competition and ensuring millions of fans can consume hockey.”

Sadly, as costs were cut which resulted in commentary being done remotely the television product dipped in terms of quality, with some of those original broadcasters stating that the product being delivered was a long way from what was promised. The randomness of the fixtures was another issue in these broadcasters failing to attract a regular and consistent following.

Hockey, unlike many other sports has shown that it needs to have live commentary. The action is simply too fast, and the ball too small to successfully broadcast remotely; something conceded by many who were not of that opinion when remote commentary came into vogue.

The FIH told us that they “asked for detailed financial modelling, projecting budgets for both the participation in matches overseas as well as hosting matches in their homeland. Details about marketing proposals for promoting the League plus commercial strategies aimed at generating income were required, alongside evidence of financial sustainability.”

If this was indeed received why are so many of the participating nations finding it so hard to cover costs? Did their administrators carry out a full cost analysis? Was funding from the FIH expected but did not eventuate?

At this time the rumour was that Hockey Australia were told that they would be in the new league no matter what, and therefore there was no need to spend hours doing a full cost analysis. Some of the staff involved at the time are believed to have aired their concerns as to the costs, but these comments appear to have fallen on deaf ears.

The teams were announced. Then India withdrew. This was a major body blow to the competition. Spain replaced them. The competition started with a great deal of enthusiasm, – but not much marketing – and before playing a game Pakistan also withdrew.

These two withdrawals were possibly the biggest blow to the League. It was too late to find a replacement for Pakistan. More importantly it brought into question the selection process for participation within the League. Something that was questioned at the time in “Looking For Answers.”

In fact FIH board minutes from July 2017 show that the then CEO Jason McCracken was “extremely concerned about the financial viability of the HPLas it is designated today, with the FIH paying for all the broadcast production and other activities.” It goes on to say that “He said that without India there was a much higher financial risk due to the increased difficulty in finding a title sponsor without India in the league.” Reading this one has to ask who made the call to push ahead, if the CEO was warning of ramifications of going ahead? Also why was a decision made to stick with a nine team league when the proposed seven-team League may well have been more viable?

All of the teams who signed up to participate in the League signed up for four years. They were also not allowed to play each other outside of the Pro League or other FIH sanctioned tournaments. To withdraw came at a hefty price. According to those involved in the contract process it would result in an international ban for two years. It was reported that rather than suffer a suspension the Pakistan Hockey Federation was fined for their late withdrawal. (Fine? No Thanks)

The FIH’s Disciplinary Commission opted for a fine so that the three countries that had been financially disadvantaged were compensated. We can only assume that when the fine of Rs 24 million was paid that those nations out of pocket were indeed compensated.

However, by issuing a fine rather than the penalty listed, suddenly the rules of engagement became questionable. The league changed the way it operated in year two and three, which again some have said voided the original participation agreement. One would presume that new ones were created.

Looking at the recent events and Australia’s participation one can only presume that Australia was looking to withdraw, but has been alerted to the fact that it made a commitment to participate in four editions of the FIH Pro League.

Due to the Covid Pandemic and the restrictions imposed by the Australian Government, both the men’s and women’s teams have only competed in three editions. They did not play in the 2021/22 edition.

Was Hockey Australia reminded of this, and threatened with suspension? Is that why they have agreed to remain in the Pro League?

One would think that they would have a valid case to challenge such a ruling as the Covid Pandemic was unforeseeable, and it was only that which interrupted their participation. These unexpected events prevented their involvement which in turn also prevented them from fulfilling obligations.

Again, one can only assume that this is the reason and the board were not courageous enough to challenge such a decision, as continued participation makes little sense. It has been said the Australia’s participation costs around AUD$1.4million per team, per year. The men’s team currently has no shirt sponsor, and sponsors are not supporting at the same levels as in the past due to the current economic climate, so where is this money coming from?

There was prize money in the Pro League in year one, but that did not come close to covering the cost of participation. Now it is believed that there is no prize money. An email sent to the FIH requesting clarification on the amount of Prize money on offer in season five at the time of publishing has been left unanswered.

(Since the publication of this article the FIH has responded and advised that in “Season 1 the prize money was 250k per gender (500k in total) and in subsequent seasons: 50k per gender (100k in total).” They went on to say “Important to note: the amount of Season 1 was paid out from the Grand Final (that was only staged in Season 1),like the vast majority of organisations, our finances were adversely impacted by COVID from Season 2; therefore, we had to go for savings, including the reduction of prize money.”) updated 15 April.

So commercially, with or without prize money is participation viable, and by participating are Hockey Australia acting in a fiscally responsible manner?

Throw into the mix that the FIH brought in a World Ranking points system that sees every fixture worth world ranking points, this too has had an impact on Hockey Australia, as was predicted. (Perceptions Must Not Define You.) This was always going to hamper teams when it came to trying to attract sponsorship. With Australia’s men dropping out of the top four for the first time since 1975, it has definitely impacted people’s perceptions as to where the team sits.

The FIH Pro League we were told was going to generate “a wider, more committed and loyal fan-base.” We were told that with “more national TV broadcasters and with that, more sponsorship, it’s easy to see the impact this new League will have on the players.” In addition “FIH will be working hard to amplify the impact of all the participating teams specifically within the markets of the participating nations. The placement of articles within lifestyle and business publications will be
important as we want to reach beyond traditional hockey and sports media.”

The players were supposed to benefit financially, just as they were to benefit in the ‘junior version of the Pro League,’ Australia’s Hockey One League. The truth is five years on they haven’t. Some have been unable to participate in the revised mini tour format of the Pro League as their employers are not prepared to keep giving them time off. These employers preferring to allow them to leave and participate in more meaningful competitions where national pride is on the line, such as the Olympic Games or the World Cup. As the players are often dependant on that income, as there is very little coming their way from playing at the highest level, they have no choice but to bypass the Pro League.

As one coach said they are often forced to pick youth players who are still at university for the long away trips, as they can get the time off, and are happy to travel.

Of course having the top players missing in a tournament that has been sold as a “must-see event” is going to impact the ability to have the sport witness “packed stadia across the world and throughout the year.” It is also going to make it harder to attract sponsorship.

The Hockey Australia Board’s decision is one that is hard to fathom. Commercially it makes no sense to stay in the competition. The only logical explanation for their decision is the threat of suspension, yet if they had their finger on the pulse they would have known that Pakistan was not suspended. Which surely set a precedent? So why did they not have the courage to challenge such a threat if that was the reason?

At the end of the day the Executive Board are there to set the strategic direction to help the organisation achieve its purpose.of promoting the sport and importantly to oversee the financial performance of the organisation. By signing up for another three years have they acted in the best interests of Hockey in Australia?