Big Isn’t Always Better!

It was not a good Australia Day weekend for Australian Hockey.

The Hockeyroos drew their opening two matches in the FIH Pro League with Belgium, and picked up a bonus point via the shoot-out in one match and dropped the bonus point by losing the shoot out in the second match. Their victory was not a ‘win,’ and neither was it achieved via a ‘penalty shoot out,’ as reported by some. A penalty is taken from the Penalty spot!

The Kookaburras drew their opening game also with Belgium, and lost the shoot out. Just as in the case of the women’s matches the team scoring the equaliser winning the shoot out. (The Price Of Conceding Late) They then lost the second match. Which again was not ‘a second leg’ as some seemed to believe; For it to be a second leg it would have to be a home and away affair, or the game would be decided on an aggregate score! (When Is a Win Not A Win)

Is this reporting indicative of the state of the game? Or just lazy reporting?

Following that draw in their opening game, Australia lost their World Ranking position of number one, Belgium who were ranked second by two world ranking points moved ahead of them. Many could not fathom how this could be the case. The top two teams play a draw and one picks up more world ranking points that the other; the shoot out had no bearing on the result as this was purely an exercise to decide who would receive a bonus point.

The elo system has been adopted by the FIH, which is based on a similar model used by FIFA, and a sport in which there are decidedly more draws. The rule states that “if a draw occurs, the lower ranked team will gain a small number of points and the higher ranked team will lose the same number of points.” So as one former international asked ‘why would you ever play a team ranked close to you in this system?’ How do you explain to the average fan that following a draw where both teams were awarded one point in the league that they are competing, one team received more World Rankings points?

Australia could have no complaints in the second game, Belgium outplayed them and were worthy winners. That game should have seen then regain World Number One status not the draw!

The results, as much as some may lament are not such a great concern. Australia’s sights are set on what is still regarded as the pinnacle event in Hockey, the Olympic Games, later this year. Both teams are very much in the early phases of their Olympic development. Colin Batch, the coach of the Kookaburras, who are defending their Pro League title has said publicly that as much as they would love to win the League again, it was not a priority in 2020. The focus is very much on Olympic Gold. Something Australia’s men have only won once, when Batch was assistant coach to Barry Dancer in 2004.

One of the things that was worrying for the sport was the coverage on Fox Sports. The women’s match was delayed due to lightening in Sydney. The delay lasted for fifty minutes, and clearly having commentary based in Sweden rather than Sydney caused issues. Fox understandably left the game, but failed to advise the viewers as to the state of play while they endured wall-paper TV which comprised of surfing and rugby sevens. When the game did resume, we returned for the final two minutes of the first half, went to a commercial break, and did not see another minute of the game. Neither were we advised that we would not be seeing any more of the match! Clearly the rain delay affected planned programming, that is understandable, but surely as paying customers, – Fox is a subscription television service – the viewers deserved to be advised as to what was happening?

As for the men’s match which started at 1430 Western Australia time, this was not aired until 2000hrs. Five and a half hours after the game started!

This is obviously a concern for Hockey Australia as delayed broadcasts do not help viewing figures, or help grow the sport or the event. In the modern age it is very hard to stay clear of the result of game that has already been played, as there are simply so many ways in which you can accidentally stumble across it before you watch. There are not many who enjoy watching a game that they already know the result of.

As frustrating as the television viewing times were the saddest part of the whole weekend were the crowds at Sydney Olympic Park. Let us not forget that in the men’s tournament the two teams on display were the World number one and two, The reigning World Champions up against one of the most consistent teams in World Hockey. While the Hockeyroos are ranked number two in the World. In addition the New South Wales Pride were the inaugural Champions of the revamped National competition, so you would have expected a crowd. So where were the hockey fans?

Hockey fans across the nation have moaned for years that they have been starved of action, but when events such as this have been held they fail to turn out in their numbers. Last year the crowd in Tasmania was rated by the players as one of the best in Australia, and to be fair fans in Melbourne did turn out in force for the opening games a year ago.

Which raises the question as to why Sydney was chosen as a venue. Hockey Australia’s administrative offices are based in Melbourne, so logically Melbourne would have been the ideal location. However the State Netball and Hockey Centre is undergoing a revamp, as Melbourne tries to entice the High Performance unit across the country from Perth where it has been for over 30 years.

Tasmania, proved a difficult destination for the travelling teams to get to in 2019, and the cost of the broadcast was prohibitive. In addition it is claimed that the FIH ruled the venue not suitable.

Sydney, is a strange choice as the venue worked when it hosted the Olympic Games only because it was the Olympic Games and temporary stands were erected on the opposite side from the main stand where all of the commentary and media boxes are located. Now when filming a game the venue looks empty. It is in fact a very poor venue from a television perspective. Add to that the people of Sydney claim ‘it is hard too get to’, and ‘too far to travel,’ you have to overcome a mental barrier. Added to that mental barrier is a cost barrier, the public do not like having to pay the parking fees charged if you drive to the venue, on top of the ticket prices. No doubt Hockey Australia were aware of these barriers, but still felt that they could overcome them and fill the stadium.

They didn’t. Was there enough marketing of the matches? Does the Pro-League actually have a profile as a sporting event outside of the hockey fraternity? The crowds at the weekend and at other matches would say that it doesn’t.

As “The Reverse Stick” hockey podcast tweeted over the weekend “Seriously @HockeyAustralia if you can’t get the crowds for #FIHproleague in the most populous city then it’s time to think regional!” This was something advocated by former Kookaburras captain Mark Knowles before his retirement after the Commonwealth Games two years ago. One of the reasons being that country Hockey is the lifeblood of the game in Australia. Surely a smaller packed stadium with fans who appreciate the team being there would be better than what we witnessed at the weekend?

Another nagging question has been why would you stage a game on Australia Day in Sydney at a time when most people are heading to the best vantage points around the river and the harbour to witness the annual fireworks and live concert? Wasn’t that always going to be a hard sell?

In fact it would appear that the Pro League is proving a hard sell once again. In Season one a lack of marketing and a lack of sponsors prevented the new league from fulfilling its promise of fans being able to witness their national teams “perform in big, bold, packed and loud venues both in their homeland and overseas.” The then CEO Jason McCracken also claimed that the new league would “also allow fans to engage with more world-class hockey more often, whether on TV or live at their national venue.” Delayed broadcasts, geoblocking soon put paid to that.

This League was we were frequently told ‘four years in the making.’ When it was launched the FIH President Dr Narinder Dhruv Batra stated “The Hockey Pro League represents the first major milestone for the Hockey Revolution. It embodies everything our 10-year strategy aims to achieve – making hockey a global game that inspires the next generation.”

The then CEO Jason McCracken was quoted as saying “We strongly believe that this new competition will fuel the growth of our sport for many years to come, significantly increasing revenues for hockey. As a result it will make hockey a career choice for athletes.”

Many within the Hockey community are now beginning to question these claims and are gravely concerned. It is believed that only two of the participating nations claim to have turned a profit on their participation in 2019; some aided by the money as a result of winning the prize money awarded to the top three teams.

Prior to the start of the 2019 FIH Pro League incoming CEO Thierry Weil stated “When I came in to the organisation, the FIH pro league was very much in the latter stages of planning. I took this opportunity to take a step back and really understand it. I thought it was important to find out how people view it, are they supporting it? you must take the time to get a clear view of every angle in order to develop a solid strategy for success.”

At the finals in the Netherlands, which disappointingly were not a sell-out, he sat down with members of the media and discussed the League moving forward. He accepted that changes had to be made, and it was revealed that it would no longer be a Home and Away league. Teams would play two games on the road, but would not play every team away from home. There would also be no finals. Suddenly it was no longer a global home and away league. The four years of planning had been ripped up in one year!

Weil also said “the FIH pro league was one of the key attractions for taking the job as CEO of the International Hockey Federation. This new competition instantly captured my imagination. as far as I’m aware, this is the first time, in any sport, that international teams will play in a home and away global league. There’s so much that is exciting and challenging about that.” The challenges ahead are sure to test his mettle.

Coming into the 2020 season India were added to the competition. They had withdrawn in 2018 and were replaced by Spain. Pakistan’s subsequent withdrawal opened the door for India to return in 2020 and in April 2019 it was announced that they would be the ninth team.

With the FIH struggling financially India’s inclusion was expected to bring with it financial benefits. Yet while Hockey India appear to have brought on sponsors locally, still no major sponsor for the league has been announced, nor has a new sponsor been added to the official sponsors list.

This has to be a concern. Along with the reported fact that ticket sales in India for their opening matches against the Netherlands were very slow, and many in the crowd were given free tickets, and the crowd was made up of large numbers of school children. That is to be applauded as hopefully they will be the players of the future.

If India could not pack out the stadium in Hockey-mad Bhubaneswar in their opening game against a top side such as the Netherlands, and Australia could not even get close to half selling out the stadium against Belgium, alarm bells should be ringing.

As mentioned this league we have been told was four years in the making. One would therefore have expected it have been well thought through. Every ‘i’ dotted and every ‘t’ crossed.

It is interesting to note that all of those who were a part of that planning process at the FIH, and also at Hockey Australia have moved on. Did they see the writing on the wall? Did they know that the figures did not add up and jump before the blame would land at their feet?

It was always going to be a huge commitment for a country such as Australia. Did Australia enter the League out of vanity and ego rather than on the back of a full financial assessment? Being at the time the World Number One was pressure applied for them to be a part of the League? One can understand if it was, as a new League without the top side would tend to harm the marketing; if of course there was any! (Australia’s men were ranked number one when the League was announced, they were ranked second when the League commenced).

In the criteria to be a part of the FIH Pro League one of the key requirements was a Marketing Plan. In fact the first point was that those bidding to be a part of the League had to produce a marketing plan “to drive attendances over the course of up to 8 home matches per team.” They were also required to “set out dedicated resource available (internal or external support)” How many National Associations have actually done this and followed through on it?

Was the vision too ambitious? The recommendation from Deloitte who had been trying to sell a similar concept to Cricket and Rugby Union was that both Leagues be made up of only Seven teams, “with the ability to grown to 8/9 teams in future years.”

Money was always going to be an issue. At the time in 2016 the FIH absorbed all of the television production costs, so a seven team league as opposed to a nine team league was going to result in a massive saving. Negotiations then commenced with Star Sports to see if they could improve that situation. Such negotiations however gave the Indian broadcaster the upper hand.

The change to a nine team league was based purely around the men’s competition and was discussed at the Executive Board Meeting held during the Rio Olympics in 2016. It was reported to the Board that 16 National Associations had been approached to be a part of the League and that “12 of each gender are likely to bid.” The board was advised that Pakistan had not been approached, as teams would not travel to play there. Although It was suggested that Bangladesh could be their base. They were also advised that India were only looking at a Men’s team. However it was felt that if Hockey India were asked for an extra women’s team it would be forthcoming.

At that Meeting it was agreed that the initial tournament would be made up of only seven teams. It was also stressed that it was essential that teams were sustainable from the outset for the period of four years.

Of course all of that changed in the next year. The reason for the change is alleged to have been because Star Sports, if they were going to be a major partner understandably wanted Pakistan in so that they would be guaranteed two games with viewing figures in the hundreds of millions.

So the league grew to being a nine team one, and India and Pakistan were in. India then withdrew months later in 2018 and were replaced by Spain in the men’s competition and by Belgium in the Women’s. The reason given was a reasonable one, that it would not be viable for their women’s team. Pakistan then pulled out after the start of the new League in 2019 leaving the men’a competition as being only an eight team League.

This robbed broadcasters of 14 games, that they had planned for. The broadcasters were then also disappointed by the crowds at the live venues. They were expecting as McCracken had promoted ‘big, bold, packed and loud venues.’ They thought that the league was going to be played in a T20 or Rugby Sevens -like atmosphere. Many of the venues used in 2019 did the sport no favours.

Should smaller more intimate venues have been chosen? Should the National Associations that struggled to attract crowds have chosen smaller venues and cut their losses, but ensured a great atmosphere and a packed stadium? Build the product to a point where people want to be a part of it. Where they don’t want to miss out, and then reap the rewards.

One wonders if the financial forecasts were in fact realistic. Did the National Associations have a four year plan? Were they prepared to absorb losses in this first two years, break even in the third and make a small profit in the fourth?

In Australia the levy imposed on all playing the game across the country would tend to imply that such planning did not exist. Or that the cost of involvement has proven to be far greater than originally forecast.

There is no doubt that the Olympic Games will be the pinnacle Hockey event in 2020. That is what the players and coaches are focussed on, and maybe even the fans. So should the Pro League have waited until after the Olympics so that it could run for three years before facing the challenge for precedence from the Olympic Games? Would those three years have helped it to establish itself?

A commitment has been made to the Pro League and now those who signed up to it have to make it work. Clearly the Pro League is going to have to lift its profile and product off the pitch. The players alone cannot carry the competition; So far they have delivered week in week out.

It is time for investment, some marketing, and a plan to fill the stadia in every participating country. This has to be a priority. If that cannot be done in places like Sydney Olympic Park, then the FIH needs to loosen some of its ground requirements and allow smaller venues to be used as long, as they can accommodate the television requirements. The players deserve to be playing in packed stadia, rather than empty monolithic venues.

If this investment does not eventuate the Pro League and the top nations could find themselves in a serious financial predicament come 2021.