Is A Prediction Coming True? Is a Sport Under Threat From Its Own Governance?

Basketball starts with a tip off, Australian Rules Football starts with a centre bounce, both very unique ways in which to commence a sporting contest.

Hockey used to have its own unique way of starting a game with a Bully-off. It may surprise many to know that the bully to start the game finished as far back as 1983. You do occasionally see a bully during a match, but this is only used to restart play after the umpire has stopped the game when the ball has still been live. The attempted Bully-offs today are a far cry from those of the past, and at times are downright embarrassing. Many players bemused by what is expected of them.

There have been many including “The Reverse Stick” podcast who have said that they would like to see the return of the bully-off to start the game, but as yet no one has seriously taken up the campaign.

The Bully-off was described as “an act of starting play in field hockey, in which two opponents strike each other’s sticks three times and then go for the ball.” One source went on to say that “the physically stronger side force the pace from the bully off.”

This an interesting assessment.

So are the positionally stronger in Hockey administration bullying the rest? This is an accusation being levelled at the powerbrokers by many in Australia.

Hockey Australia has for at least 50 years been a key player when it came to the running of the game worldwide. Not only with the national team’s consistent performances on the world stage, and their standings in the World Rankings, but also in terms of the respect their coaches have been afforded globally. Umpires have also been respected on the global stage, although many have missed out on umpiring the major finals at World Cups and Olympic Games because the national teams have been contesting those matches. Also, during the bulk of this period of time Australia’s administration has been one that has been looked up to. They have had a reputation for having a voice on the future of the game and protecting its integrity.

It is very sad to hear that this is no longer the case. When you have respected individuals within the sport overseas asking what is wrong with Australian Hockey you know that there is a problem.

Many past players and board members believe this concern has been simmering since 2017. Eight years on one feels that the time has come for some radical changes to be made. Maybe not just on a National level, but also around the country at a state level too.

Ironically much of this concern started to be aired following Tasmanian Ken Read’s tilt to become President of the International Hockey Federation (FIH) in November 2016. Apart from being chair of the Tasmanian Hockey Board at the time, Read was heavily involved at the international level holding positions on the FIH Event Portfolio Panel, FIH Event Evaluation Panel and FIH Competitions Committee.

He stood in the election against India’s Narinder Batra and Ireland’s David Balbirnie in the race to replace the outgoing President Leandro Negre. The election however, was always seen as being between Narinder Batra who was elected, and David Balbirnie, who many expected to win. Some have gone so far as to say that Read took votes away from Balbirnie.

Read in his pitch to become President highlighted the turbulent times within sport globally, and was quoted as saying “Sport is under threat, not only from drugs and gambling, but also from governance that is either incompetent or corrupt. I have a passion to ensure the highest standards of governance in our sport.”

Words that some would say were extremely prophetic; especially in relation to drugs. It is the Governance of the sport in Read’s home country that is causing grave concerns at this present time. While few would say that it was corrupt there are many using Read’s word “incompetent.”

In the same month (November 2016) as Read’s failed run at the Presidency David Hatt resigned as President of Hockey Australia, and was not replaced officially by Mel Woosnam in February 2017. That same month (February 2017) the CEO Cam Vale stepped down, and in June 2017 Hockey Australia once again became a pawn within Australian sporting politics when they parachuted the questionably qualifed Matt Favier into that role.

Hockey had already become embroiled in the battle for the Presidency of the Australian Olympic Committee when it openly supported former international player Dani Roche’s run against the dominant, and extremely powerful, and politically savvy John Coates.

One of Hockey’s biggest problems is working out where it sits on the Australian sporting landscape. While boasting arguably Australia’s most successful international team in the Kookaburras, the marketing of the teams, the sport, and its events has been a real issue. An issue that is becoming greater as time goes by.

Hockey is still to all intents and purposes very much an amateur sport, and yet it tries to promote itself as being professional. Regrettably some of its administration and management still fall well short of promoting a professional image.

Since the time of David Hatt’s Presidency the staffing levels have almost doubled at Hockey Australia. This trend has been followed at State Level, but with these increases come expectations from the sport’s members, and unfortunately many feel that the service is falling well below those expectations.

What should be a democratic system whereby the member clubs and players in each state should be tabling what they want, and influencing how the game is run we are now seeing more of a dictatorship, where those in charge are telling the members what is going to be done and how.

This may well go back to the time of the FIH setting up the Pro League. In fact many of the problems the sport is now facing in Australia may well go back to that time. While staff employed then were going through the proposed league and how it was going to work, and whether it would in fact be viable for Australia to be a participant, it was alleged that they were told that they did not have to worry, as because of Australia’s standing in the game at the time, they were guaranteed a place in the league.

The question being asked now is at what cost? With the cost of participation per year, per team claimed to be around $1.5 million, the question is can Hockey Australia afford to be a part of the league, and is it really financially viable? Couldn’t that money be better spent at home? (Acting in the Best Interests?)

Some students of the game have even questioned how much being a part of the Pro League has harmed the national men’s and Women’s teams. Especially when it comes to their world ranking. (Perceptions Must Not Define You).

Prior to the 2016 Olympic Games in Rio de Janiero, the Kookaburras had medaled in six consecutive Olympic Games going back to 1988. In ’88 and ’84 they finished 4th.

In the World Cup going back from 2018 before the Pro League started they had finished in the top three in nine of the past 10 World Cups. In 1998 they came fourth.

The women’s team have not medaled at an Olympic Games since their third gold medal win at the Sydney Olympics in 2000. They have had five 5th place finishes and one 6th. In the World Cup going back from 2018 they had finished amongst the medals in 6 of the 11 tournaments played, and had come 4th three times. So played in the medal matches in 9 of 11 tournaments.

In the 2018 World Cup quarter finals came into play, rather than just semi finals. The same happened at the 2016 Olympic Games. Suddenly there was an extra knock-out game to play. The men came 3rd in the world cup in 2018 and 6th in the Olympic Games bowing out in the quarter-finals. The women came 4th at the World Cup in London in 2018 and at the 2016 Olympic Games also bowed out at the quarter finals.

Since the start of the Pro League in 2019 the men won silver at the Tokyo Olympics played in 2021, and bowed out in the Quarter finals in Paris. They came 4th in the 2023 World Cup. The women came third at the World Cup in 2023 but bowed out of the Olympics in the Quarter finals both times.

Meaning in the Olympic Games since quarter finals came in Australia has played seven games in both men’s and women’s competitions and won only two games. At the World Cup they have also played seven games, but have won five. Meaning that they have only won 50% of their knockout games since the Pro League started. Australia no longer plays tournaments where there is a knock-out element. Many former players believe this to be one major reason for the lack of results.

What is astonishing is that the sport has some produced some remarkable individuals who have gone on to excel in their chosen line of work. Why is the sport no longer attracting these people back to the sport either as board members or administrators?

Hockey WA has gone down that path by appointing former Kookaburra and national coach Graham Reid as CEO. The belief being that they wanted a “proper hockey person” at the helm. Someone with serious skin the game. The only downside to his appointment is that Reid has very limited experience in the working world, having not held a position outside of hockey according to his Linkedin profile since 2008. Will Hockey WA now need to create a role that helps the CEO through areas he may lack the required knowledge? It is certainly a bold move, and one can understand the reasoning behind it.

Of course Hockey faces the same problem that many other sports face outside the top echelon. Attracting good staff is hard, as the best at their jobs are snapped up by the big sports and the big clubs. So does hockey employ the right people to carry out the various tasks? Or do they settle for what is available? Should some of this work be outsourced? Would that be a more prudent and viable option, and also yield better outcomes?

Probably the first question that needs to be asked is why are these people there?

As soon as one of these individuals tells you that they are a “hockey tragic” the alarm bells should go off. Are they there purely to work in a sport they love? Or are they there to make a difference and help the sport grow, or reach where it should be? Many who utter this line simply will not make the decisions that need to be made.

As someone said recently, ‘hockey promotes inclusivity and diversity yet does it or other sports for that matter practice what it preaches by employing such people? It is in fact very insular.’

Yes, there are key areas where you need expertise from within the sport, such as a High Performance Directors or coaches, but surely in other roles what is most important is a suitability to carry out the role well. One thing that again is clear, and not just in hockey is that proper background checks are not carried out. Again alarm bells should be sounding if you read someone’s resume and see they have not stayed with a sport for longer than a three year period.

This will tell you that they are either not up to the work, or are trying to climb the sporting corporate ladder and moving on before their work can be judged properly.

Of course this is why we have a board, to ensure good governance. However, even that appears to be falling down terribly. In Hockey we have seen in the past seven years a number of instants where board members do not appear to understand what a conflict of interest is.

On a Board you need key areas of expertise, that is to safeguard the sport. These experts step in and guide or advise the administration that they are overseeing. Usually these key roles on the board are broken down into key areas such as legal and financial as the main two, high performance, media and marketing are others. Some organisations will go even deeper into areas such as youth development and club creation.

Proof of this lack of knowledge was brought out into the open during Matt Favier’s time as CEO. The guidance from the board in handling the bad press received regarding the fallout within the Hockeyroos was exceptionally poor. One also has to question whether the alleged behaviour of a board member at the time contacting a player throughout that mess to try and gain inside knowledge was appropriate. (Paying a Price For The Past and The Resignation The Sport Had to Have)

Sadly, the leadership at the top is being found wanting. Unfortunately, today we see people serving on boards because they wish to enhance their own resume or bolster their own profile. Some are even there to advance their own children! There are far too many who are not there for the best interests of the game. The calibre of Board members at Hockey Australia in recent times has sadly contributed to the nation falling from relevance in the global governance of the game.

It is worth reading the Constitution of Hockey Australia, in particular section “2 Objects” and where it outlines the objects of the company: Hockey Australia Constitution Maybe the board need to be reminded of this responsibility?

They are not just there to oversee our national teams and the players coming through, but also the governance of the sport across Australia. The focus is not supposed to be solely on the national teams. While some are not to happy with their performance, it would appear that in New South Wales there are even bigger issues.

A motion has been submitted for not just the president of Hockey New South Wales to resign, but the whole board.

The motion has been submitted by the President of the Northern Sydney and Beaches Hockey Association and states:

“As a volunteer, I greatly respect the contribution that the current Board members have made.

However, the current members will always remain encumbered with current issues and strategies being employed to deal with the substantial ongoing financial pressures, diminishing resources, reduction in participation numbers and extensive toxic fragmentation at every level within our community.

While it is evident that the current members are working diligently to resolve all the issues we will remain in a “steady as it sinks” mode.

There now must be a circuit breaker.”

This letter comes on the back of some developments that have not been positive for the sport in New South Wales. One being the termination of Olympic Gold-medal winning captain Brent Livermore from his role as High Performance Director. Livermore is taking the association to court for unfair dismissal.

His dismissal came two months after another staff member in the High performance program had their contract terminated allegedly over the phone. They were also looking to challenge the decision through the Fairwork process, but NTFS was advised that the mental and emotional turmoil it has caused simply became too much.

Add to this the fact that last year hockey was cut from the New South Wales Institute of Sport program three weeks after the Paris Olympics. Also cut were track cycling, triathlon and archery. A “funding crisis” was the reason given.

With this development one would think that Hockey NSW’s development team would be even more important, and that they would have to pick up the shortfall. So it makes the terminations even more curious.

Clearly there is something very wrong. How has Hockey Australia allowed it to get to this?

Are some of the funding issues down to having an excess of employees? A lean efficient set up is always going to be more effective and successful than a bloated staff roster.

In Queensland there was a similarly bizarre development when the Hockey Australia Head of High Performance removed Lee Bodimeade who was the High Performance Director. This was a strange decision when one considers how successful this program has been in recent years. Queensland has won 58% of all national State competitions from Under 18, Under 21 and and Hockey One. This was the most successful program in the country. Bodimeade and Des King two highly respected coaches were told that they were no longer required, or offered positions at greatly reduced salaries that were untenable.

It is understood that the set up in Queensland was that the High Performance coaches were employed by Hockey Queensland, Queensland Academy of sport funded the program but they were paid out of the Hockey Australia High Performance budget. Surely if we are looking to get the national teams back to the levels of the past you would not be cutting staff in this area. Certainly not staff with a proven track record of success? You would be looking at areas within the administration if costs need to be trimmed. Maybe even look at national roles stepping in to assist the States when required.

Lee Bodimeade is an Olympic Silver medallist and a World Cup bronze medallist. He has coached the USA women’s national team. Anyone will tell you that medals and trophies do not guarantee that someone can coach. Yet here there was actual proof of a successful program. The man who terminated his contract moved from sports science with swimming where they had worked for 11 years before moving into high performance sport at Triathlon Australia. They worked there for three years, before taking on a similar role with rowing. There have been many who question whether this individual has the required knowledge when it comes to hockey, a team sport.

In New South Wales 18 players from the NSW Pride Hockey One team, 13 of whom have played at an international level, sent an email to the President of NSW Hockey complaining about Livermore’s sacking and backing him. Copied in was the acting CEO of Hockey Australia, the President of Hockey Australia and the Chair of Hockey One. So all of the leaders in the sport were made aware of the situation and cannot plead ignorance.

In addition to the situation in Queensland the Hockey Australia High Performance Director also allegedly had a big say when it came to the national coaching positions after the Paris Olympics. While men’s coach Colin Batch was announced as having ‘retired’ it has been alleged that he was forced into that decision. Batch has probably had the last laugh by going to India and with a brand new team, the Sharachi Rarh Bengal Tigers and winning the Hockey India league.

If this was a decision made by the High Performance Director it lacked consistency. For Trini Powell as Hockeyroos coach was retained. Batch had just won the Pro League – whether that actually counts for anything is questionable – while the women came 6th. In Paris both teams bowed out in the quarter finals the women finishing 5th and the men 6th. Both coaches were in charge in Tokyo where the men lost the final in a shoot out, and had to settle for silver, while again the women bowed out in the quarter finals. At the World Cup the Hockeyroos won the bronze medal play off, the men lost theirs. So very similar records,

Across the country the one word that repeatedly comes up is “Governance.” The same issue that Ken Read focussed on in his election bid, making it very clear that it would become an issue in the sport.The feeling across the country appears to be that the sport no longer has the right people at the top, and as a result they have appointed the wrong people to actually administer the game. Which also leads to two key questions, are those at the top qualified to be there and are they there for the right reasons?

Football is slowly eating itself from the inside out with corruption and greed in its administration and Governance. Their thirst to sell their soul to the highest bidder is already seeing the game start to falter. Their Governance model is ironically one that has been copied by many sports, which sees executive board members living like kings, enjoying the perks and freebies, and flying around the world to major events. Those in other sports have thought ‘I fancy a bit of that’ and that is why they too have copied the model.

To give you some idea the FIFA Executive Committee members under Sepp Blatter’s presidency are reported to have received a USD$10,000 per month honorarium and $500 per day expenses. Now under Gianni Infantino Executive Committee members are said to receive $250,000 per year.

To stay in power Blatter set up a wide range of committees so that a whole army of wannabe executive committee members were flown to meetings and were given the honour of wearing a FIFA blazer. They too were rewarded financially, with free flights, meals etc. Now UEFA has the same such committees. How many sports have followed this model? How much are these committees costing the various sports? Is anyone looking at how effective they are being against how much they are costing?

In Football, as in other sports now votes can be bought. The Confederation offers money by way of funding projects, and in return the National Associations give them their votes without asking any questions.

The biggest problem is that no one wants to rock the boat with a system like this, as there is too much to lose. That is why frequently when elections come around for the presidency at international, national or regional federations there is only one candidate. In many cases the board will actually decide who is the President, and not the members. It is a closed shop.

Where sport in Australia is struggling is in allowing the co-opting of board members to the board. For good governance to return this has to stop. Sadly individuals close to other board members are being co-opted onto the board, and then they stand for election and the assumption is that because they have been there, they must be the right person, when in fact many are aligned with the president and will simply rubber stamp what is put forward. This is described as “power corruption,” where there is little or no accountability for decisions that are made.

Of course one of the reasons for this is that there are no times when the members or even the media are able to actually question the board on their decision-making. It is vital that the masses understand why and how they reach the key conclusions that they do as it affects the sport at all levels, especially grass roots. Just look at the fees that parents are having to pay for their children to play sport.

The Government should be looking to try and ensure that sport is free for children and not throw their funding into buildings and facilities.

Once again the key questions are do these individuals have the qualifications and expertise that the board needs? Do they genuinely have the sport’s interest foremost in their minds? Have they attended an Australian Institute of Company Directors Course, as this is vital for them to understand their duties, responsibilities and liabilities?

For Australian Hockey to climb back to where it was in the world on and off the pitch there are going to need to be radical changes in terms of structure and governance at the top. This will hopefully filter down to the grassroots level and we will start to see participation numbers rise again rather than decrease. There needs to be far more unification within the sport across the country. That is not just domestically, but also within Oceania as well as New Zealand Hockey is not in a good place either.

What transpires in New South Wales at the AGM at the end of this month could have a major impact on the sport. It could well be the catalyst for change.

Those who have brought things to a head in New South Wales should be applauded, as they could well be the ones to instigate changes that need to happen. Their courage to take a stand may well encourage others to do the same for the sake of the game. While the final outcome may well determine the future of the sport in coming years and its standing in the world.

It certainly looks as if Ken Read’s words have proved prophetic, although one wonders whethere he thought this would be the case in Australia. Those words again being, “Sport is under threat, not only from drugs and gambling, but also from governance that is either incompetent or corrupt.”

Remember the description of the bully-off, ‘the physically stronger side force the pace.’ To bully is defined as “seeking to harm, intimidate, or coerce someone perceived as vulnerable.” Is that where the sport is at? Surely not, but attitudes need to change.