Are the answers Football Australia is looking for in the Crawford Report?

For those who remember football in Australia before the turn of the century, when the Crawford Report was published in 2003 there was optimism that football was finally going put aside petty power struggles, be run properly, and the game would fulfil its potential and sit alongside Cricket and AFL in the Australian sporting psyche.

Two decades later and it is hard to be optimistic.

Less than a month ago it was reported that Football Australia, the body that now runs the sport in Australia was lobbying the Federal Government for “$50 million to establish a National Football Headquarters, including a world-class High-Performance Centre, a Football Museum, and facilities to host international teams.”

This was not the only project that they were asking for funding for under their “Securing our Football Future policy.”

Some of the other funding requests were as follows:

$1.56 billion from the next Federal Government, to establish a ten-year infrastructure program for community sport to deliver equitable and inclusive changerooms across the country, particularly to meet the rapid growth in women’s football.
$851 million from all State and Territory Governments, to establish a ten-year infrastructure program for community sport to address the lighting facilities gap to increase access and playing hours.
$391 million, over five years, to address pitch drainage and weather resilience in the face of climate change.Investment in State Homes of Football, including expansion of existing Homes of Football, as well as the establishment of the Tasmanian Home of Football, Capital Home of Football and the Home of Football Mid North Coast.
Calling on Federal and State Governments to establish a formal process to expedite and streamline bidding opportunities for major international football tournaments.

That was not all. They were also “seeking support to advance Australia’s global leadership in football through:

$1 million in seed funding to launch the Australian Championship—a new National Second Tier that strengthens the pathway between grassroots and professional football.
Support for a streamlined bidding process to attract future major international tournaments.
Investment in a 17,000-seat boutique stadium at Perry Park, Brisbane, as a flagship football venue for the 2032 Olympics.
Enhanced backing for sports diplomacy initiatives across Asia and the Pacific, leveraging football’s reach to build stronger regional ties.”

There were many who came out in support of the home of football and were extremely vocal as to why the Federal Government should make this a priority.

First of all it is worth acknowledging that the Federal Government has in the past 20 years given football more funding than any other sport, including supporting a failed World Cup bid, a successful Women’s World Cup bid and two Asian Cup hosting bids.

Fans were told how hugely successful these events were, along with the benefits of the national men’s and women’s teams regularly qualifying for World Cup finals, so why is the sport still unable to sustain itself?

In 2024 Football Australia announced a loss of $8.5million. A year later that loss has risen to $15.34million.

As a tax payer and a lover of the game it is hard to justify the Government handing over yet more money at this point in time.

Football Australia’s relatively new CEO Martin Kugeler stated this past week that FA has “to introduce strong cost discipline within the organisation, and we have to live within our means.” This made many ask why was this not the case already?

He went on to add “we have to make decisions ground on evidence, research and data.” Implying once again that this has not been happening in recent times.

There can be no doubt that many who have been employed by the sport in the last 20 years jumped onboard because football was seen as being “cashed-up,” and it would enhance their resumes. Many within the sport asked for more “Football people” to be employed, without explaining exactly what that meant. To many it meant employing people with experience of success in the sport in administrative roles, not just former players. Under Kugeler’s predecessor James Johnson, there appeared to be a great deal of cronyism in terms of the appointments that were made, and some were shown the exit as soon as Johnson left.

It is one thing to employ ex-players but they must have experience, qualifications or the skillset required for the role that they have been appointed to. After checking the qualifications of one individual who gained a senior role there was absolutely nothing in their past employment history to show that they had the knowledge or skills to even be offered the role. This is why and how football’s administration ran itself into the ground in the past. To many the current situation is simply history repeating.

Which reminds us of the words of the philosopher George Santayana who wrote, “Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” This was a big mistake made by the Football Federation of Australia in the early part of the past twenty years, they claimed that this was “new football” and refused to talk or even acknowledge the game existed before they took over. This was foolish in the extreme as these were the foundations on which the sport was built in Australia.

With no foundations to rely on the house was bound to fall.

As Martin Kugeler has implied the rebirth of the game with Government support and Frank Lowy as Chairman had some believing that Football was now sitting at the top table alongside AFL and Cricket. Yet there was still a very long way to go before the sport could claim that, despite the participation numbers outstripping the other two.

Staffing levels were too high for a sport looking to establish itself as a top sport. Salaries were too high for some staff who were not the best in their role in the marketplace. The sport was living beyond its means.

Never was that more so than with the A-League. There are many who will say off the record, but few will say it publicly that the Professional Footballers Association (PFA) have a lot to answer for in terms of where the league sits financially. They did their job and they did it well by pushing up the wages of the players in the A-League, but at what cost?

The average salary in Australia’s A-League Men’s competition is currently approximately $135,000 to $150,000 per year. Of course this is an average driven up by experienced, marquee, and international players. The minimum wage is around $70,000, with youth scholarship players earning between $45,000 and $60,000.

Teams play a total of 26 games – excluding FA Cup Matches – in the regular season. By comparison to overseas leagues these wages are on par with lower divisions in Europe, but the question is can the Franchise owners afford such wages over so few games? Can they afford them when unlike clubs in Europe they have to rent the stadia in which they play?

All of the A-League clubs operate within a hard salary cap of $3 million. They have a minimum spend of $2.25 million. Clubs are allowed one marquee player whose salary sits outside of the salary cap limit.

It is now over two decades since the A-League started, should a minimum spend be locked in but the maximum spend be removed, so that clubs can pay what they can afford? So that the League is more fiscally responsible?

Despite the A-League being separated from Football Australia it was revealed that the A Leagues owed the Governing body unpaid monies. The FA was quick to say that it had not written off money owed by the league to them. Will these monies be paid and if so when?

To add to everyone’s woes the the Socceroos and Matildas 2023 Collective Bargaining Agreement brokered by the PFA has resulted in both Matildas and Socceroos players being paid under a tiered system, with the top players receiving up to $200,000 per year outside the World Cup cycle. Players at the bottom of the tier system are believed to be paid approximately $120,000.

With match fees ranging from $7500 to $10,000 per international, the cost to the FA is in the region of $250,000 just to pick a squad for an international match. Once again can the sport really afford such costs? Especially when they too have to hire the stadium to host the match?

The other question being asked is how can this possibly work effectively. Surely a national team and squad is picked on form and which players gel with others, why are these players tied to a long term contract? Surely it should be based solely on a match or tournament fee?

There would be few who would argue that they would love to see the players paid to the same level as the historically established football nations, but Australia is not yet at that level. It is unsustainable.

The financial reports of the past two years have shown that the sport is spending money it simply does not have. For example it has been reported that FA wages and salaries last year totalled $53.25 million, almost $11 million more than in 2024. The footballing public one feels has a right to know where that $11million was spent. As this is no small pay rise!

The biggest issue that has held football back is the same one that led to the game being shut down for 18 months before being rebuilt, poor governance and structure.

The Crawford Report was supposed to result in a restructuring of the governance of the National and State Associations. It was supposed to result in a more democratic approach, and the enfranchisement of groups that had previously not been represented e.g. referees, women’s players, etc.

This was to happen through the Standing Committees and the Zone Reps. Yet this structure has only been paid lip service. In fact one former State CEO openly stated that it was “not in their interest for this to work.”

The Zone Reps were supposed to represent clubs in a decreed area. Some do not even know the names of the clubs that they are representing, the clubs themselves often don’t know who their Zone Rep is. There is no communication between the Zone Reps and the clubs alerting them of developments or issues, or asking their views on candidates for various roles and how they would like them to vote. They are representatives of these clubs, they are not independent individuals with a vote. For the system to work it is vital that they are held accountable.

In many cases the Standing Committees too have been stymied from being truly representative and driving the game forward, as with representatives from the State Association sitting in on meetings many feel that they are unable to speak candidly or openly. Some have openly stated that they fear the consequences for their club if they speak up.

In Western Australia the National Premier Leagues commenced in 2014. This replaced the former State League, which is now the remaining two divisions in the semi-professional leagues. Despite two legal changes to the Football West Constitution in 2017 and 2023, there is still no NPL Standing Committee listed in section 3.6 Standing Committees. This is in spite of section b) stating: “In addition to the Standing Committees referred to in article 3.6(a), the Directors may, with the consent of FFA, establish any other Standing Committee they think fit;”

So the clubs at the highest level in this state have no legal voice. The clubs from which players are likely to be picked up by the A-League clubs have no place in the legal running of the game in that state.

It is easy to argue that the clubs have themselves to blame. Yet since the dawn of the NPL more and more responsibilities have been thrust upon these clubs and their volunteers, and many struggle to keep all the balls they are juggling in the air.

Surely, however there should be some checks and balances being done by the umbrella organisation Football Australia to ensure that every state has these committees set up properly with members voted on and off, and minutes recorded as this will ultimately enhance the game and issues will be heard rather than buried?

If Martin Kugeler is genuinely serious about better governance he needs to appoint or have the Australian Sports Commission appoint independent ombudsmen in each state to oversee the Governance from State Board level down to the various standing committees and Zone Reps. All of these elected representatives of everyone in the game need to be made aware of their responsibilities once elected and held accountable from then on.

Talking of responsibilities one question that does not appear to have been asked since the announcment of the two consecutive financial losses by Football Australia in the past two years, is how many of the losses are due to decisions made by the Board Members?

One of the key responsibilities of a Board Member is to exercise reasonable care, skill, and diligence, and bring informed judgment to financial matters.

While board members are generally shielded from an organisation’s liabilities, it is importnat to remember that they can be held personally liable for breaches of their duties. If they have been found to have failed in their financial responsibilities the consequences of their decisions can include civil penalties, fines, or personal liability for debts incurred if they breach anti-insolvency trading laws.

Football Australia is not currently insolvent despite the huge losses. This is because of its broadcast deals, and commercial agreements. While the governing body is going through a very tough time, its core operations remain viable thanks to the huge grassroots registration numbers and it is hoped its predicted cost-cutting measures.

Even so one feels that a closer investigation into how certain decisions were reached at board level that may have cost the game vast sums of money need to be shared with the stakeholders, the members in each state. Which are the Zone Reps and Standing Committee Representatives.

There are plenty who are questioning how a board member can be contracted to offer services to the sport while still on the board and receive payments of $180,000 last year and $810,000 this year. Interestingly the individual resigned from the Board in May 2025 after the PlayFootball registration platform they had been consulting on was launched in December 2024.

This is not the first time that a board member has received payment for offering Consulting services. If offeriong such services should they step aside? It is not a good look for the game them consulting when holding such a role.

Sadly, it would appear that the die was cast early in the rebirth of football.

Frank Lowy returned to the game and was hailed as the messiah. He was the first Chairman of the Football Federation of Australia as it was then, and held that position from 2003 to 2015.

When the A-League was established under his leadership in 2005, Lowy via his family trust, became a key investor in Sydney FC. The FFA at that time oversaw the running of the A-League. As FFA chairman, many felt strongly that this was a conflict of interest. Mr Lowy defended the concerns about a conflict-of-interest by stating that his primary goal was to safeguard the club’s financial viability during its formative years.

After huge financial losses in the club’s first year he became the major shareholder. In 2008 he sold that majority share of 70%. He did not sell his final shares believed to have been 10% until September 5, 2019, ending the Lowy family connection with the club.

Lowy’s argument about safeguarding the club may carry some weight as his company Westfield stepped in and sponsored the W League and the Matildas. The value of these sponsorships was never disclosed. As a Board Member should there not have been transparency on such issues?

Needless to say the media have poured over the recent financial report in the past week and ESPN’s Samantha Lewis wrote when looking at debts not paid by the Australian Professional Leagues (APL) that “additionally, Football Australia is entitled to 10% of both international player transfers and club expansion fees which, according to public reports, could total almost $9 million since 2023.”

This is a real red flag.

This issue raised its head over five years ago and according to FIFA ” a football association can receive a percentage of a transfer fee under strictly defined conditions, typically limited to the mandatory Solidarity Contribution and specific Association/League Levies.”

There are currently no transfer fees between clubs in the A League. So the fee would only apply to overseas transfers. The FIFA regulations are that when a player under contract is transferred to a new club in a different jurisdiction, 5% of the total transfer fee must be withheld and distributed to the clubs that helped train the player between their 12th and 23rd birthdays.

The role of the National Association is to act as the intermediary. To collect and distribute these funds to those clubs If a club entitled to a percentage (e.g., a defunct youth club) cannot be found, those specific funds are forwarded to the National Association (such as Football Australia) to be strictly used for national youth development programs.

So where is the 10% coming from? Also they are only supposed to be an intermediary in relation to that money.

When a National Association takes a percentage of transfer fees, it will directly impact a club’s finances and operational resources. These consequences will have a huge impact on the economic landscape of the sport. If the FA are indeed doing this why? Especially if it is going to going to impact the sport as a whole?

If a National Association takes a percentage of a transfer fee, it generally violates FIFA Statutes, which prohibit third-party influence and restricts transfer compensation to clubs, players, and licensed agents.

The consequences do not bear thinking about. First up the transfer can be deemed invalid and the International Transfer Certificate withheld.

The National Association could face a fine or loss of FIFA funding. It is also likely to be told to repay the illegally deducted funds.

Then there is the risk of sanctions: Such a move can result in the potential suspension of the association from international competitions or result in an administrative takeover by FIFA

This is just another issue that the newly appointed board will need to get on top off and quickly as the last thing they need is an international suspension, which would cause more untold damage to their financial situation.

The one thing that is clear over the past week is that there has to be a change. There has to be better Governance and those at the top would be wise to turn back the clock and ensure that the systems that were advocated as a result of the Crawford Report are implemented and are working. As mentioned an independent observer in each state would be a wise appointment for the next few years to ensure that all is running as intended.

The Crawford Report came about because of conflicts of interest and mismanagement at the Board level at Soccer Australia. It would appear that two decades later nothing miuch has changed in football, just the names.

Will it ever fulfil its potential? Or is it doomed to be continually railroaded by self-serving individuals?